Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay 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