Back
1994 Supreme(Bom) 252
Bombay High Court
M.B.GHODESWAR,R.M.LODHA
State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Bhandara - Appellant
Versus
Maimuna Begam w/o Abdul Sattar Quereshi - Respondent
Decided On : 06/17/1994
Shri S. G. Deshpande, 'A' Panel Counsel, for Appellant; Shri J. N. Chandurkar and Shri Anand Parchure, for Respondent No. 1.
The trial court's discretion to close the evidence of a party must be exercised in accordance with the principles of natural justice and in a manner that advances the cause of justice.
Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE - CLOSURE OF EVIDENCE - DISCRETION OF TRIAL COURT - EXERCISE OF - PRINCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED - ORDER XVIII, RULE 2(4) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit against the State of Maharashtra and others for the return of gold ornaments and cash seized by the defendants during a search of her house. The defendants claimed that the search was conducted pursuant to a valid search warrant and that no ornaments or cash were seized. The trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit, holding that the defendants had failed to prove that the search was lawful or that the ornaments and cash were not seized.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and decree, holding that the trial court had erred in closing the evidence of the defendants and in refusing to allow them to lead evidence on their behalf. The High Court held that the trial court should have exercised its discretion in accordance with the principles of natural justice and should have given the defendants an opportunity to lead evidence, even though they had been negligent in conducting their case.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in closing the evidence of the defendants? 2. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow the defendants to lead evidence on their behalf?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The trial court has the discretion to close the evidence of a party, but this discretion must be exercised in accordance with the principles of natural justice and in a manner that advances the cause of justice. 2. The trial court should not close the evidence of a party unless the conduct of the party is contumacious, grossly negligent, or involves serious inactions or laches. 3. Order XVIII, Rule 2(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 allows the court to direct or permit any party to examine any witness at any stage, even after the closure of evidence, for reasons to be recorded.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court's judgment and decree. The suit was remanded back to the trial court for giving an opportunity to the defendants to lead evidence.
LODHA, J. :- This appeal has been filed by the State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Bhandara under S. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 5th of May, 1990 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhandara in Special Civil Suit No. 82 of 1985 (Maimunabegum v. State of Maharashtra) whereby he passed the decree in favour of plaintiff and directed the defendants to return to the plaintiff the golden ornaments weighing 28 1/2 tolas or the gold of equal weight or in the alternative to pay the present value of the gold weighing 28 1/2 tolas and also directed the defendants to return cash of Rs. 80,000/- to the plaintiff along with costs of the suit.
The plaintiff-Maimunabegum filed suit as indigent person on 19-3-1980 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhandara against the defendants stating therein that on 19-1-1977 the defendants 4, 5 and 6 came to the house of plaintiff and searched the same; the said persons forcibly took the keys of the boxes and almirah from her saying that they are having warrant against her husband and he will be detained in MISA or in any criminal case under S. 406 of the Indian Penal Code; on search of the house, the Police and the said defendants found cash of Rs. 80,000/- in one box along with the ornaments viz. to Patlis of 10 tolas, one Gahu Poth of 4 tolas of gold, five golden chains of 4 tolas each and four rings of 1/2 tola each, totally amounting to Rupees 78,600/- the ornaments and cash which were seized were in actual physical possession of the plaintiff and the same seizure and search was illegal and without any rights. According to the plaintiff, the property was not liable to be seized and despite several demands, the authorities-defendants have failed to return the same. The plaintiff alleged that the property was taken away by the defendants 4 to 6 without giving any acknowledgment. The plaintiff submitted in the plaint that she has issued a notice under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 18-1-1980 to the defendants and despite receipt of the notice, no redress has been given t0 the plaintiff, necessitating the filing of suit. The suit was valued at Rupees 1,58,600/- for the purposes of Court-fees and jurisdiction. The plaintiff thus prayed that she be allowed to sue as indigent person and the defendants be directed to return cash of Rs. 80,000/- and the ornaments of 46 tolas of gold to the plaintiff or the price of the said ornaments which is Rs. 78,600/- and the decree for interest from the date of seizure till realisation at 18% per annum and the costs be awarded.
2. The defendants filed written statement and traversed the averments made in the plaint. The defendants submitted in the written statement that the defendant No. 6, Shri Vyawahare, Police Sub-Inspector, P.C.I. Centre, Rohankarwari, Chindwara Road, Nagpur had carried a search warrant issued by the defendant No. 3 Shri V. R. Bangirwar, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhandara for Government record and the record of All India Jamayata Ul Mansoori; the said warrant was issued under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for search of the house of Shri A. S. Qureshi at Tumsar (plaintiff's husband) and pursuant to that warrant the house was searched by the defendant No. 6, Police Inspector in presence of defendants 4 and 5 who were directed to be present as witnesses at the time of search; the defendant No. 3 Shri V. R. Bangirwar who was working as Sub-Divisional Magistrate-at Bhandara District was competent to issue the search warrant for recovery of relevant record of the Government Office and the responsible officers i.e. the defendant No. 4 Shri N. V. Pant, Nazul Officer and the defendant No. 5 Shri D. M. Landage, Naib Tahsildar were asked to carry the search of the house of the plaintiff's husband; the warrant was shown to the plaintiff and thereafter the search was conducted legally and in peaceful manner and, therefore, the question of forcib
