M. S. KARNIK
Geeta Kamkar – Appellant
Versus
Ramadevi Korepali – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dtd. 18/4/2023 passed by the trial Court rejecting the application made by the petitioner-accused for adjournment which had the effect of closing the defence evidence of the petitioner.
3. Having perused the impugned order, I do find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has been casual in her approach in the matter of filing the affidavit-in-evidence. A request was made for adjournment on 18/4/2023 for the reason that the affidavit-in-evidence could not be completed as the accused had to obtain certified documents from the bank on which the accused wants to rely. The trial Court passed the following Order:- 'Final opportunity was given on 24/1/2023. Even thereafter on account of medical grounds, opportunity was given on costs. Despite that no AIE is filed on the pretext obtaining documents. I do not see bonafide as the accused had sufficient time to obtain such documents. Hence, rejected. Defence evidence stands closed.'
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact, the p
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....
The court emphasized that the closure of evidence should not be unduly harsh, especially when the delay was not intentional.
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.
The court may grant an opportunity for adjournment considering the circumstances, such as late service of documents, with conditions to prevent abuse of the adjournment process.
The court reaffirmed the principle that parties must diligently prosecute their cases and that undue adjournments harm the justice system.
The court has the discretion to grant adjournments and may set aside orders rejecting adjournment applications if the reasons for refusal are not justified.
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 court balanced the interest of justice with the prejudice to the respondent and granted an additional opportunity to the petitioner subject to payment of substantial costs.
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....
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.