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


UDHO DASS v. MAHINDER SINGH & Ors - CR-188-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 196 (19 January 2006)




C.R. No.188 of 2006

Date of Decision: 31.1.2006

Udho Dass Vs. Mahinder Singh and others

Present:- Shri Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri S.S.Ahlawat, Advocate for the respondents.


Vide order under challenge, evidence of the petitioner- defendant was closed by order. Counsel states that due to some gap of communication with his counsel, petitioner failed to bring evidence in Court, on the date fixed. It has further been stated that suit of the respondents- plaintiffs is for permanent injunction and if the petitioner is not allowed to conclude his evidence, he shall suffer an irreparable loss.

The prayer has been made to grant only one more opportunity, at risk and responsibility of the petitioner, to conclude his evidence, may be, subject to payment of costs. Prayer made has been vehemently opposed by counsel appearing for the respondents.

This Courts feels that 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 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 C.R. No.188 of 2006 [2]


"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 the ratio of the judgments referred to above and facts of the present case, order under challenge is set aside. Trial Court is directed to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to conclude his evidence subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- as costs to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents on the next date of hearing before the trial Court.

It is made clear that if the petitioner fail to avail the opportunity granted by this Court, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

January 31, 2006 ( JASBIR SINGH )

renu 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.