Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN CHANDER NEGI
Sharat Sood – Appellant
Versus
Deepak Patiyal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the Rent Controller, Shimla in Rent Case registration No. 79 of 2023 (Rent Case/1450/2023 CNR No.:HPSH120014282023) for an expeditious disposal of the proceedings.
2. Heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the record.
3. A rent petition seeking eviction of the respondents in the case at hand has been filed by the present petitioner. The rent petition in the case at hand was filed on 23.05.2023. Office report in the same was done on 26.05.2023. Thereafter, notices were issued to the respondents for 11.07.2023. On account of incessant rain on 11.07.2023, there was a holiday. Thereafter the matter was taken up on 28.08.2023, on which date, respondents though served, had not put in an appearance, hence were proceeded against ex parte.
4. Subsequent thereto, the matter was listed for recording of ex parte evidence of the petitioner/landlord on 02.11.2023. Statements of a few witnesses of the petitioners were recorded on 02.11.2023. Appropriate steps for service of one witness (Manager UCO Bank) who despite service was not present were taken on the said date. On the next date fixed for recording of
The court emphasized the necessity for timely justice and the detrimental impact of routine adjournments on the justice delivery system.
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 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 court held that a Rent Controller must allow applications for document admission before assessing their relevance, prioritizing fair trial over procedural delays.
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.
Point of law: Equality before law implies an absence of any special privilege. So does equal protection of laws by ensuring equality of treatment among people in similar circumstances.
The right to timely resolution of rent disputes is fundamental under Article 21, necessitating the Appellate Tribunal to adhere to statutory timelines for appeals to prevent undue hardship to landlor....
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
