Back
B. P. COLABAWALLA
Indumati K. Simepuruskar (Since Deceased) – Appellant
Versus
Sharaddha Shrikant Bandekar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
B.P. Colabawalla, J. - Rule.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners finally.
3. The service is complete on the Respondents. Despite this, none has appeared on their behalf.
4. In the present Writ Petition, a challenge is laid to the impugned Roznama dated 28th November 2022, passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Mapusa in Regular Civil Suit No. 11/2018/G, in which, the evidence of the Plaintiffs was closed and the matter was posted for evidence of the Defendants.
5. By Roznama dated 4th November 2022, the Plaintiffs [Petitioners herein] were directed to furnish their affidavit in evidence eight days in advance prior to the next date [i.e. on or before 20th November 2022], failing which, no affidavit in evidence would be considered. The matter was thereafter fixed for examination in chief/cross examination on 28th November 2022.
6. On 28th November 2022, an affidavit in evidence on behalf of the Plaintiffs was tendered to the Court and was also served on the Advocate for the Defendants. However, the same was not taken on record as the same was not filed by 20th November 2022. It is in these circumstances, the impugned Roznama dated 28th November 2022 records
The court emphasized that the closure of evidence should not be unduly harsh, especially when the delay was not intentional.
A party must demonstrate diligence in presenting evidence, but courts may grant additional opportunities to file evidence in the interest of justice, subject to conditions such as the payment of cost....
A party must adhere to procedural timelines, and repeated failures to comply without sufficient justification may result in the dismissal of their petitions and applications.
The main legal point established is that repeated failure to avail opportunities to file evidence and lack of justification for delay may demonstrate an intent to delay the suit, leading to dismissal....
The court condoned a 61-day delay in filing an application and allowed the petitioner to present evidence to facilitate an expeditious resolution of the case.
Courts may close plaintiff's evidence after multiple (more than three) wasted opportunities in old suits; delays often due to parties' conduct, not judicial inaction; no interference warranted.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of granting reasonable opportunities to the defendant to lead evidence and the need for judicial orders to fix actual dates for r....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
