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 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