The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash the Trial Court's order dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 151 CPC for reopening evidence in a civil eviction suit. The Court found no merit in the petition.
Writ petition dismissed; no interference with the impugned order dated 30.9.2019.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19298/2019
Versus
Murti Mandir Shri Raghunath Ji Maharaj, Mandir Samaj Kumawatan Situated Sanghpura, Old Tonk Through Next Friend Kamlesh S/o Shri Gopal Lal By Caste Kumawat Aged 35 Years, Occupation Stitching Work, Behind Natraj Hotel, Mehandibagh, Tonk Rajasthan
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Agarwal for Mr. VS Chauhan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Order
04/01/2020
This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 30.9.2019 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 80/2013
(2 of 3)
[CW-19298/2019]
whereby the application filed by the petitioners-defendants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendants’) for reopening their evidence has been dismissed.
Facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for eviction and mandatory injunction against the defendants, wherein summons were issued. The defendants put in appearance. The counsel for the defendants denied to lead evidence. In this view of the matter, vide order dated 15.3.2019, defendants’ evidence was closed. The defendants filed an application under Section 151 CPC for re-opening their evidence. The plaintiff filed reply to the said application. The Trial Court vide its order dated 30.9.2019 dismissed the defendants’ application for reopening their evidence.
Hence, the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the defendants submits that on 15.3.2019, the defendants no. 1/1 to 1/3 were out of station and the defendant no. 2 was suffering from vomiting as well as loose motions, therefore, the defendants could not appear before the Trial Court for their evidence nor could they inform their counsel. However, the learned Trial Court has utterly failed to consider this aspect of the matter and on this count, the impugned order dated 30.9.2019 is liable to be quashed and set-aside.
Heard. Considered.
A perusal of the order dated 30.9.2019 indicates that the defendants’ evidence was not closed by the Trial Court suomoto, but on the basis of submissions made by learned counsel for the defendants before the Trial Court on 15.3.2019 that the defendants did not want to produce the evidence, their evidence was closed. So far as the ground taken by the defendants with
(3 of 3)
[CW-19298/2019]
regard to non appearance of defendant no.2 before the Trial Court on 15.3.2019 due to vomiting and loose motions, neither any medical documentary evidence in regard thereto was produced before the Trial Court nor any documentary evidence with regard to defendants no. 1/1 to 1/3 being out of station was produced. After closing the defendants’ evidence, the matter was posted for hearing the arguments and on 12.7.2019, final arguments were heard, but could not be completed. Thereafter on 6.8.2019, the defendants filed the instant application with a view to procrastinate the trial of the suit.
The findings arrived at by the Trial Court in its order dated 30.9.2019 are just and proper. There is no reason for this court to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.9.2019 in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
I find no force in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J
DILIP KHANDELWAL /11
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Trial Court's dismissal of the application for reopening evidence under Section 151 CPC.
Whether the High Court should quash the order dismissing the application due to the petitioner's absence or illness without medical evidence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dinesh S/o Gopal Lal (Since Deceased) Through His Legal Heir
Ramesh S/o Gopal Lal
Murti Mandir Shri Raghunath Ji Maharaj
Prakash Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
