High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of orders closing witness statement filing and proceeding ex-parte. The court held no illegality or impropriety was demonstrated and the petition lacked merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WP227 No. 998 of 2015
---- Petitioners
---- Respondent
For Petitioners – Shri R.K.Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondent – None, not noticed.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Chandra Bhushan Bajpai
Order on Board
02/12/2015
appearance on 03-11-2015 wherein they prayed the opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses. The Court below rejected the prayer for adjournment for preparation and cross-examination to the plaintiff’s witness. It is prayed that the Court be pleased to quash both the orders and direct to accept the reply and the prayer to cross the plaintiff/respondent.
appeared for defendants 1, 2, 3 and 6, the other defendants were represented through their counsel as mentioned in the earlier order sheets. After taking the matter for hearing third time, as there was no representation at the time of hearing regarding defendants 4 and 5, the Court below proceeded ex-parte against defendants 4 and 5; on behalf of other defendants 1, 2, 3 and 6 an application was filed under Order 17 Rule 1 for adjournment regarding defendants. The Court below adjourned the matter by not recording the statement of the plaintiff, an opportunity was given to the petitioners and the matter was listed for plaintiff’s evidence on 03-11-2015. On 03-11-2015, again an application under Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC was filed by defendants 1, 2, 3 and 6 and prayed for adjournment for cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses; the Court below appreciated the facts and observed that on 30-102014 Vakalatnama had been filed jointly by Shri N.K.Patel and Shri J.R.Patel to represent defendants 1 to 3 and 6 and thereby from the day one Shri J.R.Patel filed his power to represent the defendants. The Court further appreciated the facts and directed that the matter be taken up on 3.00 p.m. for cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses; further the matter was taken up on 03.30 p.m. and the defendants 1, 2, 3 and 6 were not represented through their respective counsel Shri J. R.Patel. The Court below proceeded ex-parte against the said defendants.
point to be taken note of is that if the Court proceeded ex-parte against the defendants 1, 2, 3 and 6, then why petitioners have not filed any appropriate application to set aside their non-appearance as per Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC; no reason is shown as to why the petitioners not opted the recourse of
Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC.
Sd/-
(Chandra Bhushan Bajpai) JUDGE
Aadil
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders closing the opportunity to file witness statement and proceeding ex-parte lacked legality or propriety justifying quashing.
Whether the petitioners had discharged the burden to set aside the ex-parte proceedings by filing an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Dolkunwar W/o Hridaylal Patel
Chandra Bhushan Bajpai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
