High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Amrik Singh v. Dera Baba Ram Dass Ji & Ors - CR-878-2006  RD-P&H 561 (6 February 2006)
CIVIL REVISION NO. 878 of 2006
DATE OF DECISION: February 16, 2006.
Dera Baba Ram Dass Ji and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. Ajay Sharda, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Vide order under challenge, evidence of the petitioner defendant was closed by order. Counsel for the petitioner states that on account of ill health of the petitioner and also gap of communication with his counsel, he failed to appear in the Court on the date fixed. However, application was moved for adjournment but the same has been dismissed by the Court below in an arbitrary manner. Counsel further states that the petitioner needs only one opportunity to complete his evidence at his own risk and responsibility. An assurance has been given to this Court that on the next date of hearing, petitioner shall produced in Court whatever evidence he intends to bring on record. It has been further stated that the suit against the petitioner is for possession of agricultural land and if he is not allowed to conclude his evidence, he shall suffer an irreparable loss. A prayer has been made that may be subject to payment of costs, one opportunity be given to the petitioner.
This Court is of the view that Rules and procedure are handmaid of justice. These are meant to enhance its cause and not to scuttle the same. Their Lordships of the 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 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 the Supreme Court in N. Balajit v. Virender 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.
Consequently, this revision petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside. Trial Court is directed to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to conclude his evidence. Petitioner, as undertaken by his counsel, shall produce his entire evidence on the next date of hearing before the trial Court. This order is subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/- as costs , which shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondents on the date fixed before the trial Court. It is made clear that if petitioner fails to avail this opportunity, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.
At this stage, no notice is being issued to the opposite party, because if the respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, it may involve huge expenditure and unnecessary harassment and delay of proceedings. This view finds support from a Division Bench judgment 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 behalf in this Court. The instant order by which the present petition is being disposed of fully protects the interest of the respondent -workman inasmuchas 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."
Libery is granted to the respondents to get this revision petition revived, if they feel dissatisfied.
Copy of order be given Dasti on payment of usual charges.
February 16, 2006. ( Jasbir Singh )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.