Civil Revision petition allowed where petitioner missed opportunity to examine witness due to family emergency despite fault. Petitioner granted chance to examine Baldev Singh subject to payment of costs.
Order challenged set aside; trial court directed to grant petitioner opportunity to examine witness on payment of Rs.10,000/-
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Revision No. 2285 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 2285 of 2011 Date of Decision: 19.5.2011
Amar Singh
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Gram Panchayat Village Jheeta Kalan & Ors.
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR
Present:Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
**None for the respondents. *****
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
The present petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit for injunction filed by him against the respondent Gram Panchayat. He is aggrieved with order dated 19.11.2010 by virtue of which his evidence has been closed by the order of the Court and has also impugned the order dated 8.3.2011 whereby his application for recalling of the said order has been dismissed.
Heard.
The petitioner no doubt had been callous for not concluding his evidence despite availing number of opportunities, but it is evident that on the 19.11.2010 when his evidence was closed, the plaintiff was examined and from the affidavit annexed with the revision petition, it is clear that one other witness Baldev Singh was also present during the pre-lunch session, but on account of death of his relative he had to leave the Court. This fact was duly communicated to the Court but despite that his evidence was closed. The suit is for permanent injunction and if one more effective opportunity is not provided to the petitioner for concluding his evidence, he shall suffer irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated in any manner. Furthermore, the defendants can be well compensated in terms of money.
Civil Revision No. 2285 of 2011
2
Rules and procedure are handmaid of justice. These are meant to enhance the cause of justice and not to scuttle the same. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by LRs and Ors. Vs. Parmod Gupta (Smt.) (dead) by LRs and Ors. 2003(3) SCC 272, in para 26 of the judgment had opined as under:-
“Laws of procedure are meant to regular 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 to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice.”
Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and order, under challenge, is set aside. The trial court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-, to conclude his evidence. In case the cost is not paid on the next date of hearing fixed before the learned trial Court, the instant petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.
(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE
May 19, 2011 Jiten
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to examine additional witness despite prior closing of evidence.
Whether condonation of delay in filing the civil revision petition is warranted.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by LRs and Ors. Vs. Parmod Gupta (Smt.) (dead) by LRs and Ors. 2003(3) SCC 272Referred¶20
Amar Singh
Gram Panchayat Village Jheeta Kalan
Arvind Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
