LexMOHAN LAL AGGARWAL versus ATINDER MOHAN KHOSLA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-- A MOHAN LAL AGGARWAL ' v. A TINDER MOHAN KHOSLA MARCH 12, 2004 B [R.C. LAHOTI AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] ·- Administration of Justice: c Advocate elevated as High Court Judge-Deciding a case of parties, on - behalf of one of whom he had appeared as a counsel in a revision-Duty of litigant to spea~-landlord-tenant dispute-Eviction of tenant ordered by Rent I Controller and confirmed by appellate authority-Revision of tenant dismissed by Single Judge of High Court-Review petition by tenant contending that the Single Judge who dismissed the petition, before his elevation had argued a D revision on behalf of the landlord and, therefore, he should not have heard the revision petition-Review dismissed-Held, it is not the case of the tenant that the Judge, whilst at the Bar had at any time appeared for the landlord at the trial or was personally known to him-The Judge cannot be expected to have remembered unless reminded that he had been a counsel for any of the parties E at some stage in some litigation between these very parties-The tenant should have told his counsel that in the event of the revision petition coming up for hearing before the Judge concerned he should bring the fact to the notice of --- the Judge-This must be taken as a duty to speak on the part of the litigant failing which he cannot.be heard to raise grievance if the result of the litigation goes against him-The Judge was right in hearing and deciding the revision F on merits when it was argued before him without any demur and without reclusion from the Judge being sought-Nor any fault can be found even with ~ the view taken by the single Judge in dismissing the review petition-However, on the principle that justice should not only be done but also seen to have been done, the two orders passed by the single Judge are set· aside and the revision petition is restored for hearing afresh before the High Court albeit G by another Judge-But the appellant must pay costs for his conduct-East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949~s. 15(5)-Revision. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1571-1572 ~ of 2004. \, H 1174 M.L. AGGARWAL v. A.M. KHOSLA 1175 -- From the Judgment and Order dated 2.12.2003 and 8.L2004 of the A ~ ~ Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 5618/2003 and R.P. No. 6/2004 in C.R. No. 5618 of 2003. R.C. Mishra and Ms. Meera Agarwal for the Appellant. R.K. Talwar, Amit Talwar and S.L. Aneja for the Respondent. B The following Order of the Court was delivered : Respondent has made appearance on caveat and takes notice. - Leave granted. c ~ We are in a dilemma. Whether we allow or dismiss the appeals it would be an unpleasant duty done. A brief factual backdrop. The suit premises are situated in Jalandhar city. The respondent is the landlord and appellant is the tenant. On 15.4.1996, D the respondent initiated proceedings for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises on the ground that the premises were required bona fide to. satisfy the requirement of the respondent and his family members. On 24.5.2000, the Rent Controller directed the appellant to be evicted. An appeal preferred by the respondent came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The respondent filed a revision petition in the High Court under Section E 15(5) of East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The learned single Judge before whom the matter came up for hearing on admission seems to have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner with patience and dealing with all the pleas raised before him directed the revision to be dismissed by a speaking order as, in his opinion, it was not a fit case warranting interference in F exercise of revisional jurisdiction of High Court. However, the appellant was allowed six months time for vacating the premises. The appellant then moved an application seeking review/recall of the revisional order of the High Court on the ground that at one stage of the litigation between the same parties the learned single Judge, who heard and decided the revision, had appeared in the High Court as counsel for the landlord-respondents and, therefore, he G should not have heard the revision petition. The review petition was filed by changing the counsel. The learned single Judge dismissed the review petition t stating that this fact was not brought to his notice when he heard the revision ~1 and decided the same on merits. Feeling aggrieved by the revisional o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.