Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

"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"]

Similar News