Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Rajasthan State Industrial ... vs Modi Thread Mills on 28 March, 2003

Laxmi Lal vs Smt. Gulab Bai on 25 January, 2006

The decision in the said case is based on an earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation v. Modi Trade Mills (RLW 2003(4) 2192). It is observed therein that a little more sensitive approach is required to be adopted by the courts in process of dispensation of justice. The Court also desired that a party should not be driven out from the Court by way of punishment for whatever reason. It will be travesty of justice if the Court fails to exercise the power in restoring the proceedings except for rare and exceptional reasons. We may remind an age old well established principle that every court has inherent power to act exdebite justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which it exists. It has always been the anxiety of the courts to decide an issue on merit instead of driving out a party from the court for one or the other technical reason. Even if the party was remiss in complying with the directions of the Court, the petition could have been restored on payment of cost. On refusal to restore a petition is bound to result in meritorious matter being thrown out and the cause of justice being defeated. In an identical situation a Division Bench of this Court refused to restore the petition dismissed as a consequence of peremptory order being not complied with.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - N N Mathur - Full Document

Ratan Singh And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 29 September, 2005

3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the view that the special appeal deserves to be allowed. The learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition for want of prosecution on non-appearance of the counsel when the matter was called up. It must be clearly understood that the law contemplates dismissal of petition in even of non- appearance of the party or its counsel. The law also permits and provides a wide discretion in resorting the petition dismissed for want of prosecution. The discretion for restoration is much more wider. While dispensation of justice the paramount consideration of the Court is not only simply to maintain discipline but to administer justice. This Court in Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation v. Modi Trade Mills, RLW 2003 (4) 2192, observed that a little more sensitive approach is required to be adopted by the courts in process of dispensation of justice. The court also desired that a party should not be drived out from the court by way of punishment for whatever reason. It will be travesty of justice if the court fails to exercise the power in restoring the proceedings except for rare and exceptional reasons. We may remind an age old well established principle that every court has inherent power to act exdebito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which it exists. It has always been the anxiety of the courts to decide an issue on merits instead of driving out a party from the court for one or the other technical reason. Even if the party was remiss in complying with the directions of the court, the petition could have been restored on payment of cost. On refusal to restore a petition is bound to result in meritorious matter being thrown out and the cause of justice being defeated.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - N N Mathur - Full Document

Mani Lal Kalal vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 18 August, 2005

2. The learned Single Judge has refused to restore the writ petition. We have perused the application for restoration of the writ petition. We are satisfied that there existed sufficient reasons which prevented the learned Counsel for the appellant to appear before the Court when the case was called. We have observed in Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Jodhpur v. Modi Threat Mills, Jodhpur that refusal to restore an appeal is bound to result in meritorious matter being thrown out and the cause of justice will be defeated. In another matter, whereby, a division Bench of this Court refused to condone the delay in filing the application for condonation of delay, the Hon'ble Apex Court condoned the delay and restored the matter.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - N N Mathur - Full Document
1