Case Note & Summary
The case involves a partition suit filed in 2008 by the respondent/plaintiff against her siblings and other family members concerning properties left by late M.H. Gangadhar. The plaintiff claimed equal share in the joint family property. The defendant No.5 (petitioner No.4) filed applications (I.A. No.18 and 19) for reopening of the case and permission to lead further evidence, which were rejected by the trial court on 06.12.2017. The High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, set aside the impugned order and allowed the applications on terms of costs and conditions for expeditious proceedings. The court observed that the trial court's rejection was too rigid and that allowing further evidence would serve the ends of justice without causing prejudice to the plaintiff, as costs could compensate for any delay. The court directed the trial court to permit the defendant to lead evidence and conclude the suit expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Reopening of Evidence - Order 18 Rule 17 CPC - The court has discretion to allow reopening of evidence to secure the ends of justice, especially when the applicant is a defendant who had not earlier led evidence due to circumstances beyond her control. Held that the trial court's rejection was too rigid and the application should be allowed on terms of costs and conditions for expeditious disposal. (Paras 1-3)
B) Partition Suit - Joint Family Property - Rights of Parties - The suit for partition and separate possession was filed by the plaintiff claiming equal share in joint family property left by deceased father. The defendant sought to lead further evidence to contest the claim. Held that allowing further evidence would not cause prejudice if compensated by costs. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for reopening of the case and permission to lead further evidence filed by the defendant in a partition suit.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned order dated 06.12.2017, and directed the trial court to allow the applications (I.A. No.18 and 19) on terms of costs and with conditions for expeditious proceedings. The trial court was directed to permit the defendant to lead evidence and conclude the suit expeditiously.
Law Points
- Reopening of evidence
- Permission to lead further evidence
- Civil Procedure Code Order 18 Rule 17
- Partition suit
- Discretion of court
- Costs
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (08) 35
Writ Petition No.1926 of 2018 (GM-CPC) and Writ Petition No.8067/2018
Dinesh Maheshwari, Chief Justice
Shri. Gangadharaiah.A.N, Shri. P.D. Surana
Smt. M.G. Sharada Bai, Sri. M.C. Nikhiliesh, Sri. M.C. Pradeep, Smt. M.G. Pramila
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the trial court's order rejecting applications for reopening of case and permission to lead further evidence in a partition suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (defendants in the suit) sought setting aside of the impugned order dated 06.12.2017 and grant of their applications for reopening and leading further evidence.
Filing Reason
The trial court rejected the applications filed by defendant No.5 for reopening of the case and permission to lead further evidence.
Previous Decisions
The trial court passed the impugned order on 06.12.2017 rejecting I.A. No.18 and 19 in O.S. No.5062/2008.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for reopening of evidence under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC.
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the trial court's discretionary order.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the defendant No.5 had not earlier led evidence due to circumstances beyond her control and that reopening was necessary for just adjudication.
Respondent opposed the applications, contending that they were filed belatedly and would cause delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the applications for reopening of evidence deserved to be granted on terms of costs and conditions for expeditious proceedings, as the trial court's rejection was too rigid and would not serve the ends of justice.
Judgment Excerpts
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is clearly of the view that on the facts and in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the applications filed on behalf of the petitioner No.4 of this writ petition, who is defendant No.5 in the suit for partition and separate possession filed by the plaintiff/respondent (O.S.No.5062/2008), for reopening of the case and permission to lead further evidence, deserve to be granted on the terms of costs and with other conditions for expeditious proceedings; and the impugned order dated 06.12.2017, as passed by the Trial Court, in rejecting such a prayer, calls for interference.
Procedural History
The suit O.S. No.5062/2008 was filed in 2008 for partition and separate possession. The trial court rejected I.A. No.18 and 19 filed by defendant No.5 for reopening of evidence on 06.12.2017. The petitioners challenged this order by filing writ petitions under Article 227 before the High Court, which were allowed on 09.08.2018.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 18 Rule 17
- Constitution of India: Article 227
