Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.
Chunnibhai Haribhai Gajera & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Hasmukhbhai Bhikhabhai Patel & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 6488 of 2024
Decided on : 23-04-2024
Adjournment - Civil Suit - Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - [15, 16, 17] - The court allowed the application for reopening the stage of evidence in a civil suit, despite the delay and negligence of the plaintiffs, due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and the pending amendment application. The court emphasized the importance of balancing the rights of the parties, exercising discretion, and ensuring substantial justice. The judgment referenced the limited jurisdiction of the court under Article 227 and highlighted the principles of supervisory jurisdiction, emphasizing that interference is warranted only in cases of grave dereliction of duty or violation of fundamental principles of law or justice.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved a civil suit regarding a land parcel. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that certain documents conveying the land to the defendants were null and void. The trial court closed the plaintiffs' right to lead evidence due to delay and adjournment applications. The plaintiffs later filed an application to reopen the stage of evidence, which was partly allowed with costs. The petitioners filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the trial court's order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that despite the delay and negligence of the plaintiffs, the trial court had rightly exercised its discretion in allowing the application to reopen the stage of evidence. The court emphasized the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, the pending amendment application, and the need to balance the rights of the parties. It dismissed the petition, highlighting the limited jurisdiction of the court under Article 227.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the delay and negligence of the plaintiffs in seeking to reopen the stage of evidence, the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the trial court's exercise of discretion in allowing the application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, the pending amendment application, and the need to balance the rights of the parties. It emphasized the principles of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, highlighting that interference is warranted only in cases of grave dereliction of duty or violation of fundamental principles of law or justice.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, affirming the trial court's decision to allow the application to reopen the stage of evidence, despite the delay and negligence of the plaintiffs. It emphasized the limited jurisdiction of the court under Article 227 and the principles of supervisory jurisdiction.
ORDER :
1. Draft amendment, which is tendered, is allowed and the same shall be carried out forthwith. The matter is taken up for hearing.
2. The present petition is filed praying for the following reliefs:
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Special Civil Suit No 396 of 2010 pending in the Court of Ld. 4th Senior Civil Judge, Surat, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of impugned order dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure-A) passed by the Ld. 4th Senior Civil Judge, Surat on application below Exh. 79 in Special Civil Suit No 396 of 2010, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;
(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant such other and further relief(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
3.1 For sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in their original status as plaintiffs and defendants. The dispute in the suit is with respect to land bearing Survey No. 264/2 admeasuring 6475 sq. meters situated at Village Katargam, Taluka-Choryasi, District-Surat (hereinafter 'the Suit Land'). That the Special Civil Suit No.396 of 2010 is filed by the plaintiffs inter alia seeking a declaration that Possession Receipt dated 15.12.2000 as well as Sale Deed dated 29.3.2007 (registered on 23.4.2008) conveying the suit being) executed in favour of the Defendants is null and void.
3.2 The Defendants appeared in the suit and filed their written statement below Exh. 35, controverting the false and concocted case of the Plaintiffs and placed on record documents showing the longstanding, use, occupation and possession of the Suit Land by the Defendants. Issues were framed below Exh. 38 on 4.8.2016. After framing of the issues, the suit was listed for the Plaintiffs to lead their evidence on multiple dates but the Plaintiff sought adjournment applications to delay the suit further. The Plaintiffs did not lead evidence for a long time despite sufficient opportunities. The attempts of the Plaintiffs to seek adjournment to delay the suit and keep it pending can be seen from the Rojkam. After considering the attempts made by the Plaintiffs to delay the suit, the Ld. Trial Judge vide order dated 07.12.2019 closed the plaintiffs right to lead evidence. Thereafter due to outbreak of Covid-19, the suit could not proceed for a short span of time. The suit was then transferred from the court of Ld. 17th Senior Civil Judge, Surat to Ld. 4th Senior Civil Judge, Surat on 21.8.2021.
3.3 Thereafter belatedly on 17.2.2023, the plaintiffs filed an application vide Exh. 79 for re-opening the stage of leading evidence. The respondents filed this application after almost 3 years and 3 months of closure of their right to lead evidence w.e.f. 07.12.2019.
3.4 The learned Trial Judge vide impugned order dated 18.12.2023 partly allowed the application below Exh.79 of plaintiffs for re- opening the stage of evidence, albeit with costs.
3.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 18.12.2023 passed by the Ld. 4th Senior Civil Judge, Surat below Exh.79 in Special Civil Suit No. 396 of 2010, the petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court.
4. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala with learned advocate Mr. Aadit R. Sanjanwala for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Karan Sanghani with learned advocate Mr. Meet D. Kakadia for the respective respondents.
5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjanwala has draw
The judgment emphasized the importance of balancing the rights of the parties, exercising discretion, and ensuring substantial justice. It highlighted the limited jurisdiction of the court under Arti....
[The court established that amendments to pleadings can be allowed even after the commencement of trial under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, provided the party demonstrates due diligence and the nature ....
[The court established that amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings, provided they do not change the fundamental nature of the suit an....
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings, provided they do not change the nature of the suit or introduce new causes of action that would prej....
The court upheld the trial court's decision to deny the petitioners' application to join the suit, emphasizing the necessity of parties and the principle of dominus litis in civil proceedings.
Amendments of pleadings are allowed only if they clarify existing issues without altering the suit's nature, and must be pursued with diligence to avoid disadvantaging the opposing party.
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
