Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Elesh Khara, a tenant in eviction proceedings, challenged the order dated 25.2.2014 passed by the Additional Small Causes Court, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No.149 of 2010, which closed his evidence due to repeated adjournments sought on medical grounds. The petitioner argued that at least one final opportunity should have been granted to lead evidence, relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Kewal Krishan v. Harnek Singh (Dead) by L.Rs., AIR 2001 SC 1440, where a final opportunity was granted subject to costs. The respondent, the landlord, contended that the petitioner had been seeking adjournments repeatedly with medical certificates for viral fever, which were likely bogus, and that the trial court was justified in closing evidence to prevent delay. The High Court observed that while repeated adjournments without just cause should be deprecated, in the larger interest of justice, one final opportunity should be granted to the defendant to lead evidence, subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/- to the respondent. The impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to permit the defendant to lead evidence on the next date, with no further adjournments. The writ petition was allowed with costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Evidence - Closing of Evidence - Final Opportunity - The trial court closed the evidence of the defendant (tenant) due to repeated adjournments sought on medical grounds. The High Court held that while repeated adjournments are deprecated, in the interest of justice, one final opportunity should be granted to the defendant to lead evidence, subject to payment of costs, following the principle in Kewal Krishan v. Harnek Singh (Dead) by L.Rs., AIR 2001 SC 1440. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in closing the evidence of the defendant (tenant) without granting one final opportunity to lead evidence, and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.2.2014 is set aside. The trial court is directed to permit the defendant to lead evidence on the next date, subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/- to the respondent. No further adjournments shall be granted.
Law Points
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence
- Adjournment
- Final Opportunity
- Costs
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (06) 94
Writ Petition No.2195 of 2014
Mr. P.S. Tiwari for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Shahane for the respondent
Elesh s/o. Poonamchand Khara
Smt. Neelima w/o. Sharad Mahajan
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the trial court's order closing evidence of the defendant in a civil suit for eviction.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (defendant/tenant) sought setting aside of the order dated 25.2.2014 closing his evidence and a direction to grant one final opportunity to lead evidence.
Filing Reason
The trial court closed the evidence of the defendant due to repeated adjournments sought on medical grounds.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Additional Small Causes Court, Nagpur) passed the impugned order on 25.2.2014 in Regular Civil Suit No.149 of 2010 closing the evidence of the defendant.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in closing the evidence of the defendant without granting one final opportunity to lead evidence?
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: At least one opportunity should have been granted to lead evidence; reliance on Kewal Krishan v. Harnek Singh (Dead) by L.Rs., AIR 2001 SC 1440 where final opportunity was granted subject to costs.
Respondent: Repeated adjournments were sought on medical grounds to prolong eviction proceedings; trial court was justified in closing evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
In the interest of justice, a party should be granted one final opportunity to lead evidence, subject to payment of costs, even if repeated adjournments were sought, following the principle in Kewal Krishan v. Harnek Singh (Dead) by L.Rs., AIR 2001 SC 1440.
Judgment Excerpts
The grievance of the petitioner is that atleast one opportunity could have been granted by the learned trial Judge to lead evidence.
Reliance is placed on the ruling in the case of Kewal Krishan .vs. Harnek Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. reported in AIR 2001 SC 1440.
Seeking repeated adjournments without any just and reasonable cause should be deprecated and discouraged.
However, in such cases, if the trial Court is suspecting that medical certificate may be a bogus document to mislead the trial Court, the trial Court can go ahead by summoning the doctor concerned who gave medical certificate if there is tendency...
Procedural History
The petitioner (defendant) filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 25.2.2014 passed by the Additional Small Causes Court, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No.149 of 2010, which closed his evidence. The High Court heard the matter and passed the judgment on 25.6.2014.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
