AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—The Petitioner, Defendant in Special Civil Suit No. 691 of 1995 has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by learned 7th Jt. Civil Judge (SD), Vadodara on 27/9/2003 below exhibit-318 application for re-opening the stage of leading evidence, as the evidence was ordered to be closed in absence of Plaintiffs counsel and Plaintiffs at the relevant time. Said application was resisted. However, the trial court deemed it fit to re-open the stage of evidence vide order dated 27/8/2003, which is impugned in this petition by the Petitioner / original Defendant, as the Plaintiffs and their advocate did not remain present despite enough opportunities were given.
Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the order impugned as well as the application for re-opening evidence and reply thereto. The fact remains to be noted that the court while passing order of re-opening has taken into consideration the fundamental principle with regard to deciding the matter on merits so far as it is possible. It should be an endeavour of the court always to afford an opportunity to the parties while deciding the matter on merits. In the instant case, on account of reasons stated by the original Plaintiffs or their advocate could not remain present for quite number of occasions which ultimately constrained the Defendant to put up an application for closing the evidence. Said application was filed on 7/12/2000 and the matter was kept on 8/12/2000, again on 29/12/2000 and ultimately on 1/1/2001 the court passed order closing evidence of the Plaintiffs. After a period of five months application exhibit-318 came to be preferred requesting for re-opening the stage of evidence as the Plaintiffs have showed cause for remaining absent.
When the Court passed order re-opening the stage of evidence by order dated 27/8/2003, and being aggrieved by the same present petition is filed by the Petitioner / original Defendant.
At this stage, learned advocate for the parties have requested to pass appropriate order and not give detailed reasons for passing the same.
In my view, the order passed does not deserve any interference, as ultimately said order is not working as prejudice to either party. However, as submitted by learned advocate for the original Plaintiff/ Respondent herein above, some cost be imposed which may work as appropriate measure for Plaintiff / Respondent herein to be vigilant henceforth in pursuing he suit and suit be exhibited.
The petition is therefore not entertained, as this Court is of the view that the order impugned does not call for interference. The order of Learned Civil Judge is sustained, on condition that the Plaintiff / Respondents herein depositing Rs. 10,000/-(Rs. Ten thousand only) in the trial court which in turn shall be disbursed to the original Defendant / Petitioner herein. The amount be deposited within 15 days hereof. The suit may be expedited thereafter, after giving opportunity to both the sides, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of writ of this order.
With these observations, petition is disposed of. Rule discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier shall stand vacated.