Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Hari Ram - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 296 of 2021
Decided On : 11-01-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. lack of notice and representation in appeal (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7) |
| 2. petitioner not heard renders order unsustainable (Para 6 , 8 , 10) |
| 3. order set aside; fresh hearing scheduled (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 17.10.2020 passed by the District Judge dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 on the ground of limitation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the proceedings were taken up through video conferencing on account of COVID-19 lockdown and no notice was received by the petitioner and they were not heard at the time when the impugned order was passed.
4. Learned counsel submits that the advocate for the petitioner who had filed the appeal had expired on 17.04.2020 and no notice had been received of the hearing of the appeal.
5. Learned counsel points out to the impugned order dated 17.10.2020 which also records that none had appeared for the appellant and the Court had passed the order merely on the basis of written arguments which were filed in August, 2019.
6. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. With the consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal today.
7. Petitioner has contended that at the time when the appeal was taken up for disposal none was present on behalf of the petitioner. He has also placed on record documents to show that the advocate for the petitioner who had filed the appeal i.e. Mr. Shiv Prasad Verma had already expired.
8. Since ex facie the petitioner was not heard at the time when the impugned order dated 17.10.2020 was passed and even the advocate who had filed the appeal had expired, the order dated 17.10.2020 is not sustainable solely on that count.
9. In view of the above, order dated 17.10.2020 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Court of the District Judge for a fresh hearing on the appeal.
10. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented upon the merits of the order and the order has been set aside solely on the ground that petitioner was not heard at the time when the order was passed.
11. List the appeal before the District Judge on 27.01.2021.
12. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
13. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.
A litigant's right to be heard is fundamental; a dismissal of an appeal without hearing the petitioner, especially due to lack of representation from the deceased advocate, is unsustainable.
The court upheld that eviction will be stayed pending the resolution of the appeal, ensuring no harassment is caused to the respondents during the process.
Eviction Order - Order for eviction of Petitioners shall not be given effect till orders of Divisional Commissioner - Divisional Commissioner is free to hear parties and decide stay application exped....
The necessity of affording a personal hearing in administrative proceedings is critical to upholding procedural fairness and natural justice.
Eviction orders under the Public Premises Act can be challenged in court, and a withdrawing petitioner can seek time to vacate while adhering to certain conditions.
The court emphasized the necessity of following procedural mandates in ex-parte hearings to ensure the defendant's right to present their case is not compromised.
Exparte order - Interlocutory application - To reopen the case and record further evidence after the matter is reserved for pronouncement of judgment is not permissible.
The court upheld the principle of due process, granting a temporary stay on demolition orders pending resolution of the pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.
The right to lead evidence in civil proceedings is fundamental and should only be forfeited for significant reasons, especially when delays are due to unavoidable circumstances.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
