High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

No Party Can Be Made To Suffer For The Fault Of The Counsel  – Punjab And Haryana High Court Sets Aside Lower Court Judgments For Non-Compliance With Mandatory  Procedures

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has remanded a case back to the trial court, criticizing the lower courts for proceeding without properly notifying the appellant after his counsel withdrew from the case. The decision underscores the necessity of judicial diligence in maintaining fair trial standards when an attorney withdraws representation.

The core issue addressed by the High Court was the procedural impropriety that occurred when the Trial Court proceeded to decide on the merits of the case after the plaintiff’s counsel pleaded ‘no instructions’ without notifying the appellant. This procedural misstep, deemed contrary to established legal norms, led to the remanding of the case for a fresh hearing.

Gian Chand, the appellant, challenged the judgments of the Trial Court dated October 18, 1994, and the First Appellate Court dated May 28, 1999, which dismissed his case due to absence and non-representation. The legal contention turned on the lack of proper notification to the appellant after his counsel withdrew, which is a crucial procedural requirement.

Notification to Appellant: The Court emphasized, referencing Baljit Singh v. Maya Ram, that the absence of notification to the appellant constituted a significant oversight. Justice Alka Sarin noted, “It was incumbent upon the Court to have issued notice to the parties. Since this was not done, the order suffers from an illegality which needs to be set right.”

Procedural Requirements: The judgment clarified procedural law as it relates to an attorney’s withdrawal, stating that the court must notify the involved parties directly to safeguard their rights and ensure fair proceedings.

No Requirement for Substantial Questions of Law: Citing Pankajakshi (dead) through LRs & Ors. V. Chandrika & Ors., the court clarified that the current appeal did not require the framing of substantial questions of law, focusing instead on the procedural lapses that needed addressing.

Decision: The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous judgments and decrees, and remanded the matter to the trial court for reconsideration in compliance with legal norms. This decision reinstates the procedural safeguard of notifying parties when counsel withdraws, ensuring that no party is prejudiced by the actions or inactions of their legal representatives.

Date of Decision: May 9, 2024

Gian Chand v. Tara Chand and Anr

Similar News