Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

Justice Must March On, But Not Without Costs: High Court Grants Final Chance for Evidence in Land Ownership Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a notable judgement, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, under the bench of Justice Vikas Suri, has granted a final opportunity to a petitioner to present evidence, conditioning this concession upon the payment of costs. The decision, delivered on 15th March 2024 in the case CR-804-2024 (O&M), underscores the importance of balancing the demands of procedural law with the essentials of justice and fair play.

The case revolved around the petitioner’s right to lead evidence in a suit for a permanent injunction concerning land ownership. The key legal question was whether the petitioner should be granted a final opportunity to present evidence after multiple adjournments, in light of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner, Ramkanwar @ Ram Kumar, challenged the order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bawal, which closed his evidence on the ground of repeated adjournments. Despite being given multiple opportunities, the petitioner failed to present his evidence in the case pertaining to land ownership.

Justice Vikas Suri, in his assessment, emphasized the significance of the right to lead evidence as a fundamental aspect of natural justice. The Court observed that while procedural law is aimed at facilitating substantial justice, it should not become an impediment. Referencing cases like Joginder Singh and others vs. Smt. Manjit Kaur, and State of Punjab and another vs. Shamlal Murari and another, the judgment highlighted the role of procedural law as a means to justice, not a barrier.

The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s failure to present evidence despite numerous opportunities but chose to grant one final opportunity. This decision was made in the interest of justice, ensuring that the petitioner's case is not prejudiced due to procedural lapses. However, to ensure responsibility and to compensate the inconvenience caused to the respondents, the Court imposed a cost of Rs.15,000/- on the petitioner.

Decision: In conclusion, the High Court set aside the order of the lower court, allowing the revision petition subject to the payment of costs. The petitioner was granted one final chance to lead his evidence, reinforcing the principle that justice must be served, but not without holding litigants accountable for their procedural responsibilities.

Date of Decision: 15th March 2024

Ramkanwar @ Ram Kumar vs. Sub Divisional Officer and others

Latest Legal News