Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Charan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Phool Singh – Respondent
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails orders dated 19th September 2019 and 22nd April 2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") in CS 8684/2016 (Charan Singh v. Phool Singh). The petitioners were the plaintiffs before the learned ADJ.
2. The order dated 19th September 2019 closed the evidence of PW-1 Ms. Baby Rana on the ground that she was recalcitrant in appearing for recording of her evidence. Additionally, the order records that costs of Rs.5,000/-, which had been directed to be paid on the earlier date of hearing, are yet to be deposited.
3. The petitioners applied for a review of the aforesaid order dated 19th September 2019. The said review application has been dismissed by the subsequent order dated 22nd April 2022, which is the second order under challenge in the present proceedings.
4. The learned ADJ has observed in the order dated 22nd April 2022, that
(i) issues were framed by the Court on 23rd July 2018, whereafter, the matter was fixed for 27th September 2018 for recording of evidence of PW-1,
(ii) on 27th September 2018, the petitioners' witnesses were not present and an adjour
The court stressed the necessity of allowing opportunities for witnesses to testify, particularly after circumstances change post-prior orders.
Court affirmed limited intervention under Article 227 when no jurisdictional errors occur, reinforcing the necessity for litigants to actively pursue their cases.
The court upheld that misrepresentation and deliberate absence in judicial proceedings constitute an abuse of process, justifying dismissal of claims.
The court emphasized that judicial proceedings must allow ample opportunity for evidence presentation, particularly during extraordinary circumstances such as a pandemic, to uphold the right to a fai....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited and circumscribed nature of the superintending jurisdiction vested in Article 227 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the importa....
The court permitted the petitioner to lead evidence despite procedural delays, underscoring that adjournments should not obstruct the pursuit of justice.
The court has the discretion to allow the petitioner to lead further evidence despite delays in the proceedings.
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
