Presiding Officer And Lawyer's Heated Argument Is Not Enough To Apprehend Unfair Treatment In Court: Punjab & Haryana HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected a Revision Petition challenging the District Court's decision to dismiss a transfer petition. There was a heated argument between the Petitioners’ counsel and the Presiding Officer. Such an incident made the Petitioners apprehensive about receiving a fair judgment from the Court.
The Court emphasised that during arguments, emotions can be high, but such should not create any doubts in the mind of the parties about receiving fair treatment in Court. The Court noted that the Presiding Officer and the Bar Members are responsible for maintaining professionalism and decorum.
“It has to be kept in mind that during the course of arguments, at times, though not called for, temperatures do run high. However, this alone would not be reason enough for an apprehension to crop up in the minds of any of the parties that they would not get justice from the Court concerned. At the same time, it is for the Presiding Officers also to ensure that no acts of theirs gives rise to such an apprehension”, Justice Vikram Aggarwal observed.
Advocate Vaibhav Narang appeared on behalf of the Petitioners, Advocate Chandan Deep Singh appeared for Respondents no 1 and 2 and Advocate Shiva Handa appeared for Respondent no. 3.
Respondent no 1 and 2 (original Plaintiffs) filed a civil suit against the Petitioner and proforma respondents 3 and 4 for possession through specific performance, along with a declaration and permanent injunction. Proforma respondent 3 applied Order VII Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code. During the arguments, the Petitioners requested an opportunity to address arguments on the application, which they claim was denied by the court. This incident caused the Petitioners to fear they would not receive justice from the court. There was also a heated exchange of words. As a result, the Petitioners filed a transfer petition, which was dismissed by the District Court, leading to the filing of the revision petition before the High Court.
The decision of the District Judge was affirmed by the High Court, citing that the decision was well-reasoned and thorough.
However, the Court reiterated that courts must give all parties a fair hearing according to the law before making a final decision on the application to reject the complaint in Order VII Rule 11 CPC. This should alleviate any concerns expressed by the parties involved.
The Court noted, “However, the Court concerned is expected to give a fair hearing to all sides (as per law) before taking a final decision on the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. This should set at rest any apprehension expressed by the parties to the lis”.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition and affirmed the Decision of the District Court.
Cause Title: Raj Bala and another v Rishabh Birla and others
