Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Bipin Chander Negi, J
Roshani – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
The present petition has been filed seeking the following relief:-
“a. That the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Mandi in Rent Petition No.1 of 2017 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner/tenant for examining one official witness of Municipal Corporation, Mandi may kindly be allowed.”
2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings and the documents appended along with the present petition.
3. The petitioner is the respondent before the trial Court. In a landlord-tenant dispute, the petitioner is the tenant. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 19.03.2025, it is evident that the matter for production of petitioner’s witnesses (DWs) was for the first time listed on 26.07.2023. Thereafter, for the said purpose, the matter was listed on 13.09.2023, 24.11.2023, 03.01.2024, 09.05.2024 and 26.12.2024. On 26.12.2024, the trial Court had made it absolutely clear that if no witnesses appear on behalf of the present petitioner (DWs), then the evidence of the petitioner would be deemed to be closed by the order of t
Repeated adjournments in civil proceedings undermine the justice delivery system, and courts must enforce timely action to maintain public confidence.
Repeated adjournments in civil proceedings must be justified; courts should not grant them routinely to ensure timely justice.
The court emphasized the necessity for timely justice and the detrimental impact of routine adjournments on the justice delivery system.
The court condemns the misuse of adjournments and emphasizes the importance of timely justice delivery. It calls for a change in work culture to discourage unnecessary adjournments and maintain the r....
The right to lead defence evidence is fundamental, but repeated failures to present evidence can justify the closure of that right to ensure timely justice.
Trial courts justified in closing defence evidence after adjournments exceeding statutory limit of two under BNSS Section 346; fair trial does not permit endless adjournments defeating speedy justice....
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
