Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

"Justice Should Not Be Non-Suited On Technicalities": Punjab and Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Closing Defendant's Evidence

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


- In a significant ruling today, the Punjab and Haryana High Court emphasized that "matters should be decided on their merits" and that "parties should not be non-suited on technicalities." The judgment came from Justice Vikram Aggarwal in the case of Hardial Singh versus Niranjan Singh and Another (CR-5503 of 2023).

The petitioner, Hardial Singh, had filed a revision petition against the order dated 4th September 2023 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate of Baba Bakala Sahib. The said order closed the evidence of the petitioner-defendant No.1, who had missed multiple opportunities to present his case. Hardial Singh argued that his absence from court was due to genuine health conditions, as evidenced by his medical card.

While acknowledging that the petitioner had been given 10 effective opportunities to lead his evidence and had only availed three, Justice Vikram Aggarwal opined, "It has to be borne in mind that matters should be decided on merits and parties should not be non-suited on technicalities."

Setting aside the trial court's decision, the High Court granted one last opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence. This reprieve is conditional, however, requiring Hardial Singh to pay ₹5,000 in costs to the plaintiff.

The ruling has garnered attention as it reflects the court's willingness to allow parties to present their case fully, even when previous opportunities have been missed. This is especially significant in the backdrop of a broader judicial conversation around the importance of deciding cases on their actual merits rather than on procedural technicalities.

Mr. Sarabjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner, expressed satisfaction at the court's decision, stating that "this ruling underscores the importance of justice over procedural hiccups."

Decided on: 19.09.2023

Hardial Singh vs Niranjan Singh and Another 

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/PUNJAB-AND-HARYANA-HIGH-COUR2.pdf"]

Latest Legal News