Grant reasonable chance to parties: HC to lower courts

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, June 26

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear to lower courts that an endeavour must be made to grant a reasonable opportunity to litigating parties to put up their best case before them.

“Nobody should be forced to go home with a grievance that a sufficient opportunity was not granted by the court,” Justice Rameshwar Singh Malik ruled while allowing an application for the restoration of a suit on a civil issue.

“By following the principle of law, the court will achieve twin objects; it will avoid multiplicity of litigation between parties, and the court will be in a better position to do complete and substantial justice between them,” Justice Malik added.

The ruling came on a revision petition by Krishan against Chattar Singh and other respondents against an order passed in December, 2011, whereby the plaintiff’s suit was dismissed as withdrawn on a statement by a counsel “without permission or instructions”. Also challenged was another order of October 29, 2014, whereby a plea for the restoration of the suit was also dismissed.

Justice Malik virtually rapped the trial court for proceeding on a hyper technical approach “instead of appreciating the true factual, as well as legal aspects, of the matter”. He added the approach led to the passing of the impugned orders, resulting in miscarriage of justice. Both orders were passed by Bhiwani courts.

Justice Malik said the plaintiff would not have moved the application for restoration, had he passed instructions to his counsel before the learned trial court to seek permission for withdrawing the suit. It was specifically pleaded in the application for the restoration of the suit that the plaintiff had never passed any instructions to his counsel to withdraw his suit.

It was also a matter of record that both parties had already led evidence and the suit, at its final stage, was listed for arguments. Justice Malik observed: “In such a situation, it does not appeal to reason as to why the counsel for the plaintiff should have suffered a statement before the trial court, withdrawing the suit….”

The judge added it was a settled principle of law that the rules of procedure were meant for advancing the cause of justice. “The impugned orders have caused a manifest injustice to the plaintiff, without there being any fault on his part…. This court is of the considered view that since the impugned orders have been found suffering from patent illegality and perversity, these cannot be sustained…. Application of the plaintiff for restoration of his suit would stand allowed…. The trial court shall also make an endeavour to decide the suit at an early date, however, in accordance with law”.