Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Prakash Premnath Gaikwad, was the second defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 13 of 2012 pending before the Civil Judge Junior Division, Wada. He filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 4 January 2017 passed by the trial court below Exhibit-56, which rejected his application to set aside the 'evidence closed order' dated 6 August 2016. The evidence closed order was passed because the petitioner failed to appear in court on that date. The petitioner contended that he was suffering from jaundice and therefore could not attend court. He argued that he had also filed a counterclaim in the suit and that if he was not given an opportunity to lead evidence, he would suffer irreparable loss and hardship. The respondents opposed the petition, stating that the petitioner had been given multiple opportunities and that the order was justified. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the petitioner had made out a sufficient cause for his absence. The court noted that the petitioner had filed a counterclaim and that closing his evidence without hearing him would cause irreparable loss. The court also observed that the trial court had not considered the medical certificate produced by the petitioner. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondents. The court further directed the trial court to expedite the hearing and dispose of the suit within six months.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Evidence Closed Order - Setting Aside - Sufficient Cause - The trial court closed the evidence of the defendant due to his non-appearance on the ground of jaundice. The High Court held that the defendant had made out a sufficient cause for his absence and that denial of opportunity would cause irreparable loss, especially as he had filed a counterclaim. The order closing evidence was set aside subject to costs. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Article 227 - Supervisory Jurisdiction - High Court can interfere with orders of subordinate courts that cause grave injustice or are passed without affording reasonable opportunity. The impugned order was set aside to prevent failure of justice. (Paras 2, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in closing the evidence of the defendant without granting an opportunity to lead evidence, and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 to set aside such order.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. Impugned order dated 4 January 2017 set aside. Trial court directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondents. Trial court to expedite hearing and dispose of suit within six months.
Law Points
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Civil Procedure Code
- 1908
- Order 17 Rule 1
- Evidence closed order
- Setting aside ex parte order
- Sufficient cause for non-appearance
- Opportunity of hearing
- Irreparable loss
