Allowed

Ghuda Ram S/O Bhuraram v. Sugan

Rajasthan HC15 Jan 2020CW/17371/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside the trial court orders closing evidence and dismissing the application for reopening, permitting the petitioners to lead evidence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 02.08.2019 and 30.08.2019 are set aside and defendants are permitted to adduce all evidence on 14.02.2020 upon payment of cost.

Ghuda Ram S/O Bhuraram Vs Sugan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17371/2019

¶3

Ghuda Ram S/o Bhuraram, Bagra Brahmin (Deceased) Through Is Legal Heirs.

¶4

1/1 Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 55 Years, S/o Ghudaram, B/c Bagra Brahmin, R/o Village Prempura, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar

¶5

1/2 Mahesh Kumar, Aged About 50 Years, S/o Ghudaram, B/c Bagra Brahmin, R/o Village Prempura, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar

¶6

1/3 Puran Mal, Aged About 40 Years, S/o Ghudaram, B/c Bagra Brahmin, R/o Village Prempura, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar

¶7

1/4 Narbada Devi D/o Ghudaram W/o Sundaram, Aged About 57 Years, B/c Bagra Brahmin, R/o Village Prempura, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar

¶8

Lalaram S/o Shri Ghudaram, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Bagra Brahmin, R/o Village Prempura, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar

¶9

----Petitioners/Defendants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Sugan, S/o Shri Ganpat, B/c Bagra Brahmin, R/o Village Prempura, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar

¶12

Suresh, S/o Shri Ganpat, B/c Bagra Brahmin, R/o Village Prempura, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar

¶13

----Respondents/Plaintiffs

¶14

Kaushlya Widow Of Shri Ganpat, B/c Bagra Brahmin, R/o Village Prempura, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar

¶15

Roshan S/o Ganpat, B/c Bagra Brahmin, R/o Village Prempura, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar

¶16

----Proforma Respondents/Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Chand Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Daga

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

Order

(2 of 3)

[CW-17371/2019]

15/01/2020

By this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners-defendants (hereinafter referred to as “the defendants”) have challenged the order dated 02.08.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Thanagazi, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court") in civil suit No.34/14/2010 whereby the trial Court has closed the evidence of the defendants. as also the order dated 30.08.2019 by which the application filed by the defendants for re-opening their evidence has been dismissed.

¶24

Learned counsel for the defendants did not dispute the fact that defendants had been granted ample opportunities to produce the evidence but they could not lead evidence. However, learned counsel prayed for one and the last opportunity to the defendants to lead their evidence.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 & 2-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiffs”) resisted the prayer and contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed in default on 30.01.2015, which was restored on 02.02.2018. Thereafter, three opportunities were granted to the defendants to produce evidence but they failed to do so. Resultantly their evidence was closed vide order dated 02.08.2019 and application for reopening their evidence was dismissed vide order dated 30.08.2019. This shows that the defendants are not at all interested to lead evidence rather their sole object is to delay the pending proceedings. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders dated 02.08.2019 and 30.08.2019 with other documents annexed with the writ petition. No doubt that sufficient opportunities were given to the

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

[CW-17371/2019]

¶29

defendants to adduce their evidence but they had failed to do so, therefore, the trial Court was fully justified in passing the impugned orders. Be that as it may, denial to adduce evidence may cause serious prejudice to the defendants, therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is in the interest of justice that one more opportunity may be given to the defendants to lead their evidence.

¶30

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Thus, the impugned orders dated 02.08.2018 and 30.08.2019 passed by the trial Court are set aside. Defendants are permitted to adduce their all evidence at their own on 14.02.2020 on payment of cost of Rs.5000/-, out of which Rs.2,500/- shall be paid to the plaintiffs and remaining Rs.2,500/- shall be deposited with District Legal Services Authority, Alwar on or before the aforesaid date, failing which, the defendants will not be allowed to adduce their evidence. In the event the cost, as aforesaid, is paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs., the Trial Court shall allow only one opportunity to the defendants to lead their evidence and no further opportunity will be granted to the defendants to lead their evidence.

¶31

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶32

Mohit36/DK

Ghuda Ram S/O Bhuraram v. Sugan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghuda Ram S/O Bhuraram v. Sugan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghvendra Singh S/O Hanuman Singh Bhakal Vs Ravidutt Nuwal S/O Shri Brij Ballabh Nuwal

Surjan Singh Vs Jagar Singh and Others

Smt. Poonam Khetawat @ Radhika W/O Late Shri Amit Khetawat Vs Miss Anupama D/O Late Shri Mahadev Mal Ji Singhavi

Hardeva S/O Ramsukha Vs Radheshyam S/O Ramniwas

Pankaj Kumawat S/O Shri Mangal Chand Kumawat B/C Kumawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Nitin Jangid S/O Kalyan Prasad Jangid Vs State of Rajasthan