Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ignatius Tony Pereira, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 2.9.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco-da-Gama, closing the evidence of PW1 (the petitioner himself) in a civil suit. The petitioner contended that the absence of his advocate on the date fixed led to the closure, and that the delay was partly due to interlocutory orders regarding production of electronically generated documents. The respondents argued that the petitioner had been dragging the matter and that on the previous hearing, it was made clear that no adjournment would be granted on 2.9.2016, failing which evidence would be closed. The High Court, after hearing the parties, observed that while the petitioner was guilty of delay, the closure of evidence was too drastic a step. It allowed the petitioner one final opportunity to lead evidence, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to each respondent, to be paid before the next date. The court directed the trial court to fix a date for evidence and proceed expeditiously, with no further adjournments to the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Closure of Evidence - Opportunity to Lead Evidence - The trial court closed evidence of PW1 due to absence of advocate on 2.9.2016, despite earlier warning that no adjournment would be granted. The High Court held that while the petitioner was guilty of delay, the closure order was too drastic and an opportunity should be granted subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to each respondent. (Paras 3-5)
B) Civil Procedure - Adjournment - Imposition of Costs - The court deprecated the dilatory tactics of the petitioner but allowed one final opportunity to lead evidence on condition of paying costs, balancing the need for expeditious disposal with the right to be heard. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in closing the evidence of PW1 (plaintiff) when the advocate was absent on the date fixed, and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the order dated 2.9.2016 closing evidence of PW1, and granted one final opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to each respondent, to be paid before the next date. The trial court was directed to fix a date for evidence and proceed expeditiously, with no further adjournments to the petitioner.
Law Points
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Closure
- Adjournment
- Costs
- Dilatory Tactics
- Opportunity to Lead Evidence
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (11) 64
WRIT PETITION NO.932 OF 2016
Shri J. J. Mulgaonkar for petitioner, Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar for respondent no.1, Shri P. S. Rao for respondent no.2
Travel Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Pifran Sanjivan Fernandes
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order closing evidence of PW1 in a civil suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought setting aside of the order dated 2.9.2016 closing evidence of PW1 and opportunity to lead evidence.
Filing Reason
The trial court closed evidence of PW1 due to absence of advocate on the date fixed, despite earlier warning.
Previous Decisions
The trial court had passed an order on 2.9.2016 closing evidence of PW1.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in closing evidence of PW1 when the advocate was absent on the date fixed.
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 and grant an opportunity to lead evidence.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: Absence of advocate on the date led to closure; delay due to interlocutory orders; petitioner was otherwise diligent.
Respondent no.1: Petitioner had been dragging the matter; on previous hearing it was made clear that no adjournment would be granted on 2.9.2016, failing which evidence would be closed.
Ratio Decidendi
Closure of evidence is a drastic step; while the petitioner was guilty of delay, an opportunity should be granted subject to payment of costs to compensate the opposite party and deter dilatory tactics.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Counsel further submitted that the delay in completing the evidence was due to an interlocutory orders passed in the suit in connection with the production of the electronically generated documents.
The learned Counsel further points out that the petitioner is otherwise being diligent in pursuing the remedy and only on account of the absence of the Advocate on the particular date, the evidence could not proceed.
Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 has taken me through the records of the suit to point out that the petitioner has been unnecessarily dragging the matter and on the previous date of hearing, when the adjournment was sought by the petitioner, it was clearly stated that no adjournment would be granted on the subsequent date i.e.2.9.2016 and in default the evidence would be closed.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a civil suit. On 2.9.2016, the trial court closed evidence of PW1 due to absence of advocate. The petitioner challenged this order by way of writ petition under Article 227 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
