Ocular Evidence Prevails Over Medical Findings: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Despite Negative Semen Report & Police Lapses High Court Cannot Pass Inconsistent Orders: Supreme Court Quashes Demolition Order Passed Despite Earlier Restraint In CMDA Regularisation Dispute Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Open University Degrees Obtained Prior To 2017 Cut-Off Must Be A Polluter Before Being Held Absolutely Liable: Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT Order Against Art Of Living Over Yamuna Event, Orders ₹5 Cr Refund Father Cannot Be Deprived Of Minor's Custody Unless Proved Unfit: Allahabad High Court Hands Over 4-Yr-Old Child To Father, Sets Aside Trial Court Order Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Integral To Personal Liberty': Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail As 24 Witnesses Remain Unexamined No Specific Chemical Opinion That Seized Substance Was Ganja: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Under Section 2(iii)(b) NDPS Act Mere Pendency Of Criminal Cases Simplicitor No Ground For Externment': Karnataka High Court Quashes Raichur SDM Order Order VI Rule 16 CPC | Defendants Enjoy Greater Latitude In Altering Defence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Explains Doctrinal Leeway Under CPC Boarding Running Train Not Self-Inflicted Injury: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Denying Compensation Possession Of One Co-Sharer Is Possession Of All: J&K&L High Court Cannot Invoke Article 226 For Registering FIR Or Restoring Water Supply: Kerala High Court Natural Guardian's Sale Of Minor's Property Without Court Nod Is Voidable, Extinguishes If Not Challenged Within 3 Years Of Majority: Madras High Court Orissa High Court Rejects Cancer-Survivor Husband's Plea To Transfer Maintenance Case Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Defect In Served Copy Of Affidavit Not Fatal: Supreme Court Restores Election Petition Challenging Lok Sabha Poll Result, Clarifies Law On Form-25 Attestation

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