The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) overturned a trial court's decision allowing legal representatives of a deceased defendant to adduce additional evidence after the final hearing stage. The Court emphasized that legal representatives can only exercise rights available to the deceased defendant under Order XXII Rule 4(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) unless they explicitly claim an independent right. The order was set aside as the legal representatives failed to specify any critical facts or reasons for their application at such a late stage.

1. Petitioner's Grievance (Para 1-2):

The petitioner, Smt. Saraswatha, had filed a partition suit where the original defendant (Ravindra Khodke) passed away during proceedings. The trial court allowed his legal representatives to submit additional evidence at the final hearing stage. The petitioner contested this decision, arguing that the original defendant had already presented evidence, and the legal representatives lacked any independent grounds to reopen the case.

2. Application for Additional Evidence (Para 3-4):

The legal representatives of the deceased filed an application to introduce further evidence and cross-examine witnesses. They claimed that their previous counsel failed to cross-examine crucial witnesses. However, they did not present any specific or major facts that required such evidence to be introduced at this late stage.

3. Opposition to Application (Para 5-6):

The petitioner opposed the application, emphasizing that the original defendant had already cross-examined witnesses before his death. The petitioner argued that the legal representatives, having adopted the original defendant's written statement, could not claim an independent defense.

4. Legal Framework: Rights of Legal Representatives (Para 7-11):

The Court analyzed the rights of legal representatives under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC. It held that the legal representatives can only assert defenses available to the deceased defendant unless they independently join the suit to claim distinct rights. The court cited relevant case law, particularly Vidyawati v. Man Mohan, to support this view.

5. Error in Trial Court’s Decision (Para 12-20):

The High Court found that the trial court erred by granting permission for additional evidence without ensuring that the legal representatives had disclosed any "crucial and important" facts. This failure rendered the trial court’s decision flawed, as the legal representatives did not present any significant reason to re-open the case for new evidence.

6. Distinction from Other Cases (Para 21-24):

The respondents cited a Gujarat High Court ruling, Jignesh Ranjitbhai Patel v. Shantiben Hirabhai Gopalbhai, but the Court distinguished it on the facts, noting that the circumstances in the present case did not justify reopening the matter for additional evidence.

7. Conclusion and Final Order (Para 25-28):

The High Court quashed the trial court's order and emphasized that legal representatives must specify their defense and any new evidence when seeking such relief. It clarified that they are at liberty to apply afresh under the appropriate provisions, provided they can make a proper case.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Order XXII Rule 4(2), Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC): Discusses the rights of legal representatives to defend in suits where the original defendant is deceased.
2. Relevant Case Law:
   • Vidyawati v. Man Mohan [(1995) 5 SCC 431]
   • Bal Kishan v. Om Parkash [(1986) 4 SCC 155]
   • Jagdish Chander Chatterjee v. Sri Kishan [(1972) 2 SCC 461]
   • Jignesh Ranjitbhai Patel v. Shantiben Hirabhai Gopalbhai [AIR 2024 Gujarat 14]

Ratio Decidendi:

The interpretation of Order XXII Rule 4(2) of the CPC. Legal representatives of a deceased defendant are entitled to pursue the defense available to the deceased but cannot introduce new evidence or claims at an advanced stage of the proceedings unless they assert an independent right or disclose compelling facts to justify such actions.

Subjects:

Civil Procedure, Partition Suit, Rights of Legal Representatives
Order XXII Rule 4, Civil Litigation, Legal Representatives, Partition Law, CPC, Final Hearing, Additional Evidence