Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Hari Ram – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| 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 ar
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
