Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


JAGRAJ SINGH v. JASWANT SINGH - CR-608-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 160 (16 January 2006)


Civil Revision No.608 of 2006

Date of Decision: 2.02.2006

Parties Name

Jagraj Singh



Jaswant Singh


Present: Shri Suresh Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner JUDGMENT

Vide order, under challenge, evidence of the petitioner was closed by order. Counsel states that due to some gap of communication with his counsel on the date fixed, petitioner could not bring evidence before the Court below. It has further been stated that suit against the petitioner is for recovery and if he is not allowed to conclude his evidence, he will suffer an irreparable loss. It has been stated that now the matter is fixed for 9.2.2006 and petitioner shall conclude his evidence on the said date before the trial Court, may be subject to payment of costs. Rules and procedure are handmaid of justice to enhance the same and not to subvert it.

Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Sardar Amarjit Singh Civil Revision No.608 of 2006 - 2 -

Kalra (dead) by L.Rs. And others v. Parmod Gupta (Smt.) dead) by L.Rs.

And others (2003) 3 S.C.C. 272, in para 26 of the judgment had opined as under:-

"Laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose even an adjudication merits of substantial rights of citizen under personal, property and other laws. Procedure has always been viewed as the handmaid of justice and not meant to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice."

View extracted above, was reiterated by their Lordships of Supreme Court in N.Balajit v. Virendra Singh and others, (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 312, wherein after noting ratio of the judgment, referred to above, in para 10 of the judgment, it was observed that the procedure would not be used to discourage the substantial and effective justice but would be so construed as to advance the cause of justice.

In view of ratio of judgments referred to above and facts of this case, revision petition is allowed, order under challenge, is set aside and the trial Court is directed to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to Civil Revision No.608 of 2006 - 3 -

produce his entire evidence at his own risk and responsibility on the date fixed. i.e. 9.2.2006. Order passed is subject to payment of Rs.3000/-, as costs, to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent on the said date. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to avail the opportunity granted by this Court, the revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

At this stage, no notice is being issued to the opposite party, because if the respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, it may involve huge expenditure and unnecessary harassment and delay of the proceedings. This view finds support from the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No.9563 of 2002, (Batala Machine Tools Workshop Co-op vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur), rendered on June 27, 2002, in which it was held as under:- "We are conscious of the fact that the instant order is detrimental to the interest of the respondent-workman. We are also conscious of the fact that no notice has been given to the respondent-workman before the instant order has been passed. The reason for not issuing notice to the respondent- workman is to ensure that he does not have to incur unnecessary expenses in engaging counsel to appear on his Civil Revision No.608 of 2006 - 4 -

behalf in this Court. The instant order by which the present petition is being disposed of fully protects the interest of the respondent-workman inasmuch as the amount determined by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur by its order dated 22.5.2002 has been required to be deposited by the petitioner-Management before the Labour Court/Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur."

Liberty is granted to the respondent to get this revision petition revived if he feels dissatisfied with this order.

Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.

February 02, 2006 ( Jasbir Singh )

gk Judge


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.