Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 803 (PNJ)

Tirath Dass v. State Of Haryana

2002-08-16

S.S.NIJJAR, SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2002
Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. We have heard counsel for the parties at length. 2. The petitioner had filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, on 15.7.1999. The revision petition was admitted and notice was issued to the respondent for 13.12.1999. No court was held by respondent No. 1 on that date as 13.12.1999 was declared a holiday. On 14.12.1999, the case was adjourned to 13.3.2000 by Superintendent Judicial to the F.C. No Court was held on 13.3.2000 due to strike of lawyers and the matter was adjourned to 1.5.2000. On 1.5.2000, the Financial Commissioner, passed the following order:- "Neither the petitioner nor his counsel is present. There is no request for an adjournment of the hearing either from the petitioner or his counsel. The case has been called a number of times till the rising of the court. It is very clear that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing this case. The revision petition is therefore dismissed in default. Announced on Sd/- Chandigarh F.C. Haryana 1.5.2000. 3. From the above, it becomes apparent that no counsel was present for the parties when the revision petition was dismissed for default. An application for restoration of the revision petition was, accordingly, filed on 8.5.2000. Counsel for the revision petitioner was heard and directed to come for further hearing on 15.5.2000 at 2.30 p.m. On 15.5.2000, the following order was passed:- "Neither the petitioner nor his counsel is present. There is no request for an adjournment of the hearing either from the petitioner or his counsel. The case has been called a number of times till the rising of the Court. It is very clear that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing this case. The restoration application is, therefore, dismissed in default. Announced at Sd/- F.C. Haryana Chandigarh Dated 15.5.2000" 4. When the counsel for the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid order, another application was,; filed for restoration. On 29.5.2000, counsel for the applicant was heard. Again the application was adjourned for further hearing to 3.7.2000. On that date, counsel for the petitioner was again heard and it was directed that the application for restoration, to come up for further hearing on 17.7.2000. ON that date, the Court was not held as the Presiding Officer was on tour and the application was adjourned to 24.7.2000. Again the application was adjourned for further hearing to 3.7.2000. On that date, counsel for the petitioner was again heard and it was directed that the application for restoration, to come up for further hearing on 17.7.2000. ON that date, the Court was not held as the Presiding Officer was on tour and the application was adjourned to 24.7.2000. On that date again, counsel for the petitioner was heard and the application was adjourned for further hearing on 21.8.2000. On that date, the following order was passed :- "Sh. Rajiv Sharma, counsel for the petitioner is present. Restoration application is dismissed as per detailed orders separately. Announced Sd/- F.C. Haryana Chandigarh Dated the 21.8.2000." 5. In the detailed order dated 15 5.2000 Annexure P-9 to the writ petition, it was made clear that the application for restoration if filed again is not likely to be entertained. 6. Mr. Kapoor, the senior counsel submitted that the orders passed on 15.5.2000 Annexures P-8, P-9 and the order dated 21.8.2000, Annexure P-14, to the writ petition deserve to be quashed as the same have been passed by totally ignoring the principles of Civil Procedure Code and the principles of natural justice. 7. Counsel for respondent No. 4, however, submitted that the Financial Commissioner has given cogent reasons in support of orders dated 15.5.2000 and 21.8.2000. In any event, no further application for restoration was maintainable after the order passed on 15.5.2000. 8. We have anxiously considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. 9. It is settled proposition of law that the Courts always endeavour to decide a lis between the parties on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. A perusal of the record clearly shows that the counsel for the petitioner had appeared on 27.9.1999 when the revision petition was admitted. On the next date i.e. 13.12.1999, no court was held on account of a gazetted holiday. Therefore, on 14.12.1999, the Superintendent judicial to the F.C., adjourned the case to 13.3.2000. On that date again the case was adjourned to 1.5.2000 as the High Court Bar Association had gone on indefinite strike. From the above, it becomes apparent that 27.9.1999 was the only date on which arguments had been heard and the revision petition was admitted. On 13.3.2000, counsel for the petitioner was absent due to the strike by the Bar Association. From the above, it becomes apparent that 27.9.1999 was the only date on which arguments had been heard and the revision petition was admitted. On 13.3.2000, counsel for the petitioner was absent due to the strike by the Bar Association. On 1.5,2000, the Revision Petition was dismissed in default. Thereafter, the application for restoration which was filed on 8.5.2000, was adjourned to 15.5.2000. From the record, it appears that neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present. It must also, however, be noticed that none was present on behalf of the respondents also. The restoration application was dismissed in default. It is apparent from the record that the matter was not heard on 13.12.1999 as that date had been declared a gazetted holiday. On 13.3.2000, counsel for the petitioner could not appear due to the strike by the High Court Bar Association. Therefore, it seems that 1.5.2000 was the only date on which the petitioner and his counsel did not appear and the petition was dismissed in default. The application for restoration was heard on 8.5.2000. Thereafter, it was adjourned to 15.5.2000 for hearing. On 15.5.2000, again neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present. Thus, the restoration application was also dismissed in default. The petitioner filed another application for restoration. On 29.5.2000 counsel for the petitioner was heard. The matter was adjourned to 17.7.2000 for further hearing. On that date, the hearing of the case was adjourned to 24.7.2000, as the Presiding Officer was on tour. On 24.7.2000, counsel for the petitioner was again heard. The application was adjourned to 21.8.2000 for further hearing. Thereafter, the order has been passed on 21.8.2000. A detailed order has been passed stating the reasons for dismissing the application for restoration. The petitioner had filed affidavits in support of the applications for restoration. He stated that he was unable to attend the Court on 1.5.2000 and 15.5.2000 as his personal cases had been fixed for hearing in the District Court. These reasons given by the petitioner did not find favour with the Financial Commissioner on the ground that alternative arrangement ought to have been made for securing an adjourned date from either of the courts. On 15.5.2000, the Financial Commissioner had observed that no further application for restoration is likely to be entertained. These reasons given by the petitioner did not find favour with the Financial Commissioner on the ground that alternative arrangement ought to have been made for securing an adjourned date from either of the courts. On 15.5.2000, the Financial Commissioner had observed that no further application for restoration is likely to be entertained. Respondent No. 4 has argued that in view of the aforesaid observations, the petitioner ought to have challenged the order at that stage. The subsequent application for restoration was not maintainable. As observed earlier, the endeavour of the courts is always to decide the cases on merits. In the present petition, a number of averments have been made with regard to the manner in which the Financial Commissioner treated the counsel for the petitioner. On the other hand, a perusal of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner shows that adverse comments have also been made on the demeanour of the counsel for the petitioner. We are of the opinion that it would not be appropriate to make any comments on the unfortunate situation. It is a matter of record that on all the occasions i.e. 1.5.2000, 15.5.2000 and 21.8.2000, respondent No. 4 had not been presented. Therefore, it appears that no prejudice would have been caused to respondent No. 4, if the revision petition had been restored and heard on merits. 10. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Order, Annexure P-3 dated 1.5.2000, orders-Annexures P-8, P-9 both dated 15.5.2000 and the order, Annexure P-14 dated 21.8.2000 are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to respondent No. 1 for a fresh decision on merits. In view of the observations made by Sunil Ahuja, Financial Commissioner, Haryana in the order dated 21.8.2000 with regard to the demeanour of the counsel for the petitioner and the counter-allegations now made in the writ petition against the aforesaid Financial Commissioner, it would be in the interest of justice, if the matter is entrusted to some other Officer for decision on merits. 11. In view of the above, it is directed that the Revision Petition be decided by an Officer other than Sunil Ahuja. The parties are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner on 16.9.2002.