SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(P&H) 1767

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.
Manjit Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Harpreet Singh And Others - Respondents
CR-5370-2025 (O&M)
Decided On : 13-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Chanakya Batta, Advocate

Litigants should not be penalized for their counsel's lapses, and courts must prioritize justice and merit in adjudicating cases.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Principle of natural justice - A litigant should not suffer for the lapses of the counsel - The court emphasized the importance of allowing a litigant to present their case on merits rather than technicalities and set aside orders closing the evidence and dismissing applications for additional evidence. (Paras 4, 5, 6)

(B) Opportunity to examine witnesses - The court granted the petitioner one last opportunity to examine witnesses due to unavoidable circumstances affecting the petitioner's previous counsel. (Para 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, aged 70, could not examine his witnesses as his previous counsel failed to present essential documents or appear for evidence, prompting the engagement of new counsel.

Findings of Court:
The court opined that justice demands the opportunity to present evidence, setting aside the previous orders of the lower court.

Issues: The issues revolved around whether the petitioner should be granted the opportunity to examine additional witnesses despite the prior dismissal of evidence and the principle concerning the consequences of a counsel's lapses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that justice must prevail, allowing for flexibility in the judicial process to ensure a fair trial, given the petitioner's age and circumstances surrounding his previous counsel.

Result: Revision petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. petition challenge against evidence closure. (Para 1)
2. claims of wrongful evidence closure and request for new counsel. (Para 2)
3. importance of justice over technicalities; elderly petitioner's needs. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
4. revision petition allowed; conditions set for witness examination. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma, J.

The present petition is preferred against the impugned order dated 04.01.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala, whereby, the evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner was closed by court order and further prayer is for setting aside order dated 02.04.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala, whereby the application for permission to adduce additional evidence moved on behalf of plaintiff/petitioner was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala, has wrongly closed the evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner by court order and also dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for additional evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that due to unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner could not examine his witnesses, therefore, he prays that one last opportunity be granted to the petitioner to examine his witnesses.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the whole file of this case with his able assistance.

4. A perusal of the file shows that the petitioner is about 70 years old. Due to the lapses on the part of previously engaged counsel, essential documents were not produced and also the counsel failed to appear to lead evidence. As a result, the petitioner was compelled to engage new counsel. It is a settled principle that a litigant should not be made to suffer for the lapses of his counsel.

5. A perusal of the file further shows that the petitioner could not examine the witnesses due to unavoidable circumstances as mentioned above. The petitioner should not suffer on account of lapse on the part of the counsel. Moreover, a lis should be decided on merits rather on technicalities, therefore, justice demands that one last opportunity is required to be given to the petitioner to examine the witnesses.

6. In view of the above, the present revision petition stands allowed and orders dated 04.01.2025 and 02.04.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala are set aside. One last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to examine his witnesses, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs to be deposited by the petitioner with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association.

7. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala is directed to grant one last effective opportunity to the petitioner to examine his witnesses.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top