Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 273 (HP)

JOGINDER SINGH v. LIC HOUSING FINANCE

2013-04-08

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. - 1. AN endeavour was made by the Court to have the dispute amicably resolved in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 . However, the same is not acceptable to the present petitioner. Also, an endeavour was made to amicably resolve the larger disputes between the parties. Petitioner is also not ready and willing to settle the same on permanent basis. 2. BE that as it may, fact of the matter is that in the present revision petition, petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 10.3.2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla in Criminal Appeal No.59-S/10 of 2008, which was passed in the absence of his counsel. Record reveals that petitioner's counsel could not appear before the lower appellate Court and as such at the time of dismissal of the appeal, his case could not be properly canvassed. Before the lower Appellate Court, petitioner had assailed the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by 1st the Judicial Magistrate Class, Court No.(V), Shimla, H.P. vide judgment dated 17.9.2005 in Complaint No.13-3 of 2005, titled as The Life Insurance Corporation Housing Finance Ltd. Vs. Sh. Joginder Singh. 3. PETITIONER has been condemned unheard and his personal liberty is involved. 4. FOR the reason that none appeared for the petitioner before the lower Appellate Court as well as the ratio of law laid down in Mohd. Sukur Ali Vs. State of Assam, (2011) 4 SCC 729 ground for interference is warranted. I am of the considered view that interest of justice would be met if the judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back for consideration of the appeal afresh. Consequently, the impugned judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla vide judgment dated 10.3.2010, in Criminal Appeal No.59-S/10 of 2008, is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the lower Appellate Court. Record be immediately sent back. Parties, through their learned counsel, undertake to appear before the concerned Court on 10.5.2013. Consequently, the impugned judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla vide judgment dated 10.3.2010, in Criminal Appeal No.59-S/10 of 2008, is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the lower Appellate Court. Record be immediately sent back. Parties, through their learned counsel, undertake to appear before the concerned Court on 10.5.2013. Considering the fact that the cheque in 30th question was issued on November, 2004 and petitioner has not paid any amount either with regard to this cheque or with regard to the other outstanding dues, the lower Appellate Court shall decide the appeal on priority basis, expeditiously and certainly not later than 31st May, 2013. The Registrar General of this Court to ensure that record is sent back immediately. With the aforesaid directions, present petition stands disposed of, so also, the pending application(s), if any.