Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

"Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Personal Liberty in Land Dispute Case"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment handed down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, personal liberty and the pursuit of justice were emphatically upheld. The case in question revolved around a property dispute and the dismissal of a complaint for non-prosecution at the pre-summoning stage.

In a noteworthy observation, the Honorable Aman Chaudhary, J., stated, "His absence was neither intentional nor willful. A serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner in case he is not granted an opportunity to seek adjudication of the matter on its merits."

The petitioner had filed a complaint in 2013 concerning a property dispute. Despite diligent attendance at court proceedings by either appearing himself or through his counsel, the summoning order had not been issued. On the crucial date of March 21, 2018, the petitioner could not appear in court due to the unavailability of railway tickets from his residence in Calcutta. In response, an application for exemption from personal appearance was filed, but it was unjustly declined by the Magistrate, leading to the dismissal of the complaint for non-prosecution.

The High Court, invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to secure the ends of justice, set aside the impugned order dated March 21, 2018. The trial Court was directed to restore the case to its original number and to decide it on its merits expeditiously, taking into account that the case had been pending since 2013.

This judgment underscores the importance of ensuring access to justice and the pursuit of cases on their merits, even when procedural issues arise. It serves as a reminder that personal liberty should be upheld and that dismissal for non-prosecution should be a measure of last resort, particularly when a complainant diligently pursues their case.

The High Court's decision in this case aligns with the principles of fairness and justice and sets a valuable precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.

Date of Decision: 23.08.2023

Joginder Pal vs Mohan Lal and others

Latest Legal News