Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Main Bazar, Kalka.

…… Revision-Petitioner/ Opposite Party No.1

V e r s u s

Govind Prakash Sukhija son of Late Mr. Hari Chand Sukhija, Resident of House No.15B2, Dharampur Colony, Near Thomos School, Pinjore, Haryana-133302.

....Respondent/complainant

BEFORE:  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

Argued by: 

Sh. Ashish Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

2.            

3.           

4.           

5.            

6.           . She further submitted that, in case, the exparte order, is not set aside, a grave miscarriage of justice is likely to occasion, to the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1, as, in that event, he will be condemned unheard. She further submitted that the order of the District Forum, is liable to be set aside.

7.              

8.            9.           In State Of Punjab and another vs. Shamlal Murari & Anr., AIR 1976 SC 1177, the  principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that procedure, is, in the ultimate handmaid of justice, and not its mistress and is meant to advance its cause, and not to obstruct the same. The procedural Rules, therefore, have to be liberally construed, and care must be taken, that so strict interpretation be not placed thereon, whereby, technicality may tend to triumph over justice. It has to be kept in mind, that an overly strict construction of procedural provisions, may result in the stifling of material evidence, of a party, even if, for adequate reasons, which may be beyond its control. We must always remember that procedural law is not an obstruction, but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the hand-maid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant, in the administration of justice. If the breach can be corrected, without injury to the just disposal of a case, regulatory requirement should not be enthroned into a dominant desideratum. Further the object of all the Courts and Tribunals is to dispense justice, and not to wreck the end result, on technicalities. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case.

10.        

11.          Keeping in view, the above discussion, as also the principle of law, laid down, in, in our considered opinion, an opportunity should be afforded to Opposite Party No.1, for filing vakalatnama, written version and evidence, in the main complaint, so that the same (complaint) could be decided, on merits, and the rights of the Parties are determined by one Forum, on merits, one way or the other. In this view of the matter, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.  

12.         

13.        

14.         

15.        

16.        

17.        

18.        

Pronounced.

March 3, 2014

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

Rg