Speedy disposal can't be misread to deny fair hearing, says Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, April 27

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the concepts of “speedy disposal” and “dispensation of justice” cannot be misconstrued to deny legitimate right, audience in the court and opportunity of fair hearing to a party. The assertion in a rent matter came as Justice Fateh Deep Singh of the High Court asserted that a Ludhiana court was required to be sensitised to the requirements of law.

The Bench asserted the court below certainly ran into an error by granting “only a single opportunity” to a party, necessitating intervention by the High Court. “In view of the sad state of affairs, one more opportunity is afforded to the petitioner to file the written reply to the main petition,” Justice Fateh Deep Singh added.

The direction came with a pre-condition. Justice Fateh Deep Singh made it clear that the same was subject to payment of Rs 500 costs, which would go to free legal aid account at Ludhiana. The parties through their counsels were also directed to appear before the court concerned on the next date of hearing.

The matter was brought to the High Court’s notice after a petition was filed challenging order dated October 16, 2019, passed by the Court of Ludhiana Rent Controller-cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division). The Bench was told that the petitioner was respondent before the court below and his defence was struck of vide the impugned order.

Justice Fateh Deep Singh asserted the matter was filed before the court on November 3, 2018. After three adjournments, the respondents on the fourth date had put in an appearance and the matter was listed for filing of an application for leave to defend. Arguments were heard on September 6, 2019, after affording adjournments for filing reply to it. Subsequently, the same was disposed of on September 10, 2019, and the matter was listed for reply to the main eviction application on October 16, 2019. “When the impugned order was passed, it was reflective of the undue haste that has been shown by the court below,” Justice Fateh Deep Singh added.