Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKAS BAHL
Haroon @ Haroon Rasheed – Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Nazir (Now Deceased) Represented By His Heirs – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of ex-parte orders and rights of parties during eviction. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the court's authority to uphold ex-parte orders. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. proper service of process to parties in eviction proceedings. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. final ruling confirming the dismissal of the revision petition. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT :
Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)
This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Rent Controller, Malerkotla, vide which the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 31.05.2022 vide which the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte, has been partly allowed to the extent that he was permitted to join the proceedings.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was respondent no.2 in the eviction petition and had an independent right to oppose the eviction petition filed by the landlords. It is submitted that the petitioner is residing separately from his brother respondent no.3 (in the eviction petition) and thus, because respondent no.3 had been served, the same could not be taken as a ground that respondent no
The court upheld the validity of the ex-parte order under Article 227, dismissing the appeal for lack of merit in challenging service.
Once an issue has been adjudicated in court, it cannot be re-litigated in later proceedings, maintaining the authority of previous judgments on the same matter.
Amendments post-trial commencement are impermissible unless due diligence is shown, reinforcing procedural discipline in judicial proceedings.
The court affirmed the need for timely and adequate rationale in litigation, emphasizing that vague reasons for delays and failure to prove necessary party status can lead to dismissal of petitions.
Court held that a request to recall witnesses is a discretion of the court and not a right of the parties, especially to avoid delays in proceedings.
The eviction was upheld on grounds of bona fide requirement and established landlord-tenant relationship, negating the appellant's claims.
The court emphasized the importance of timely filing of petitions under Article 227 and the need for satisfactory explanation for any delay. The court also highlighted the requirement for sufficient ....
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
