"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

"Procedure is the Handmaid to the Administration of Justice": Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Tenant Opportunity to Defend

05 September 2024 5:59 AM

By: Admin


In a significant decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court emphasized that procedural errors should not obstruct the course of justice. The court, on 31st October 2023, allowed a tenant, whose defense was previously struck off, another chance to file a written reply in an eviction case.

Justice Gurbir Singh, hearing the revision petition, remarked, "It is well settled that procedure is the handmaid to the administration of justice. It is meant for advancement of justice." These words set the tone for the judgment that followed.

The case revolved around a landlord's petition for the ejectment of the tenant, citing non-payment of rent and unauthorized alterations to the premises. The tenant's defense was struck off by the Rent Authority, NRI Cases, Jalandhar, in an order dated 29th February 2020.

The tenant's counsel argued that the failure to file a reply was a bona fide mistake and sought one opportunity for the petitioner to present his case. The tenant's defense had been struck off earlier due to procedural discrepancies, including a typographical error in the date mentioned in the court's order. The COVID-19 pandemic further led to delays and adjournments in proceedings.

In his decision, Justice Singh observed, "If there is any fault or clerical error or any other error on the part of the functionaries of the Court then party should not suffer." Accordingly, the court set aside the impugned order, subject to a payment of Rs. 20,000 as costs, and granted the tenant an opportunity to file a written reply.

The judgment underscored that while upholding the principles of justice, the parties should not suffer due to inadvertent errors or faults in technology. It also highlighted that procedures should facilitate, not impede, the administration of justice.

Date of Decision: 31.10.2023

SATINDER PAL SINGH  VS SEWA SINGH SANGHA

Similar News