Punjab-Haryana High Court
Megha vs Pardeep Dahiya on 6 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062719
CRR-915-2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-915-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision : May 06, 2024
Megha ....Petitioner
VERSUS
Pardeep Dahiya ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner
KULDEEP TIWARI,J.
1. Through the instant revision petition, challenge is thrown
to 1.4.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Karnal, whereby appeal against the judgment and order of
conviction dated 20.2.2024, passed by the learned trial court
concerned, has been dismissed for non-prosecution.
2. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for one year along with compensation amount
of Rs 15,00,000/-, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, vide order dated 20.2.2024, passed by the learned trial court
concerned. Having aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal.
Since, no one could appear on behalf of the petitioner on dated
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062719
1.4.2024, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on dated
1.4.2024, the petitioner was down with fever and cough, while her
counsel was away to Sri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine. Due to the said
reason, the petitioner was not able to establish contact with her
counsel, consequently, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that for the
reasons beyond control of the petitioner, she could not appear on
the said date. Therefore, there was no mala fide intention on the part
of the petitioner, for not appearing before the learned appellate
court concerned, rather her absence was bona fide.
4. The inference, as becomes generated from the record is
that, the petitioner could have, in no way, derived any benefit from
her absence in the appeal (supra), rather it would be her, whose
rights would be, and have indeed been adversely affected in such
circumstances. The absence of the petitioner or her counsel cannot
be enure to the benefit of the complainant/respondent. Moreover,
since the petitioner had remained unrepresented only on one date of
hearing, therefore, the learned appellate court concerned, instead
of straightway adopting such a harsh approach of dismissing the
appeal (supra), for want of prosecution, ought to have exercised
some leniency, inasmuch as, mere absence of the petitioner on one
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062719
date, cannot constitute the bedrock for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Gainful reference in the above regard can be made to
Purushotam Mantri v. Vinod Tandon alias Hari Nath Tandon,
2008(3) Punjab Law Reporter 595 (P&H), wherein, it has been
observed that "..it would be too harsh on the petitioner to non-suit
him merely for his non-appearance on one date...."
6. Furthermore, reference can also be made to case titled
as "Narender Parashar Versus Jagbir Singh", Law Finder Doc
Id # 192748, wherein, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while
dealing with an identical issue, has made the hereinafter extracted
observations:-
"...The doctrine of 'audi alteram partem' too
contemplates that no one should be condemned
unheard. If the impugned order is allowed to hold ground
without any fault of the appellant, he will feel prejudiced
in his right. In the words of F. Bucan "Nothing rankles
more in the human heart than brooding sense of
injustice." If the appellant is not afforded the opportunity
to substantiate the allegations contained in complaint by
leading evidence, it will go on rankling in his mind that
injustice has been done to him. The Courts are here to
administer justice...."
7. In view of the law laid down in judgments (supra), as also
taking into account the well settled proposition of law that, owing to
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062719
fault of counsel, a party to litigation cannot be made to suffer, and
that, the rights of the parties should be decided on merit as far as
possible, therefore, this Court deems it just and appropriate to
set aside the impugned order dated 1.4.2024, and, to remand the
instant appeal, to the learned appellate court concerned, otherwise
the petitioner will suffer an irreparable loss.
8. Consequently, the impugned order dated 1.4.2024 is set
aside, and the appeal filed by petitioner is ordered to be restored to
its original number, and its proceedings shall continue from the
stage from where it was dismissed by the learned appellate court
concerned. The learned appellate court concerned is directed to
proceed further as per law.
9. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned
appellate court within 10 days from today and furnish fresh bail
bonds.
10. Disposed of accordingly.
( KULDEEP TIWARI )
May 06, 2024 JUDGE
'tiwana'
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No
Whether Reportable ? Yes/No
4 of 4
