AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Jindal, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.4.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the judgment and decree dated 27.5.2010 passed by the trial court was set aside and the case was remanded back to the trial court for fresh trial after giving proper opportunity to the plaintiff to lead evidence. Vide impugned judgment dated 3.4.2012, the first appellate court finding that the trial court had decided the case in haste without giving proper opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence, remanded the case back for fresh trial. The relevant extract of the judgment is as follows :-
It has been argued vehemently by the learned counsel for the appellant that they did not come to know about transfer of this case and in routine this case was transferred on the transfer of Shri Jagdeep Sood, Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana as his court was abolished. However, by perusing the file of learned Lower Court, it transpired that already plaintiff/appellant got many opportunities for leading evidence and then last opportunity with costs was granted. The case would have been otherwise if this case would have been pending in the court of Shri Jagdeep Sood, Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana. As this case was transferred for the fixed date, so without giving notice at least to the learned counsel for the parties, it should have been given a chance to the plaintiff and his counsel, to lead evidence, if any. Mere perusal of zimney order shows that this order was passed in haste. Although as per law relied upon by learned counsel for respondent cited as M/s Shiv Cotex vs. Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. & Ors. 2011 (4) CCC 581 (SC) Hon''ble Supreme Court has laid down the law that more than three adjournments should not be given. But the facts of the case in hand are totally different. Although more than three opportunities were given by the court of Shri Jagdeep Sood, Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhaina, however, due to the fact of his transfer, that court was abolished. In such situation, it is always inconvenient to the parties as well as their counsel to reach the Court where such cases are being transferred. So in such situation, it is always just and proper to give one more chance for leading evidence and for further proceedings. So authority relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent is not applicable to the present case as the same is on different footing. However, the authority relied upon by the learned counsel for appellant cited as ''Kishore Kumar Aggarwal vs. Basudeo Prasad Gutgutia and another'' Air 1977 PATNA 131 which is on the similar facts wherein Hon''ble High Court of Patna has laid down the law that in such situation ex parte decree passed without notice when the case was transferred from one court to other is invalid. The analogy of law as settled by Patna High Court is applicable to the present case. Such order should not be passed unless proper notice should have been given to the appellant. So this judgment is certainly passed in haste and is not for advancing the justice. So same is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is, hereby, set aside. The case is hereby, remanded to the predecessor Court of Shri Balwant Singh, Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhaina, with directions to give at least two effective opportunities to the appellant and if any evidence will be led then proper opportunities shall be given to the respondents/ defendants for leading evidence and thereafter case shall be decided as per provisions of law. The appellant is, however, burdened with costs of Rs.2000/-. With this view, this appeal is accepted and is allowed. Record of learned Lower Court be returned with the copy of this judgment. File be consigned to record room.
Though the appellate court has set aside the order, yet the rights of the parties have not been decided and it was left to the trial court to decide a fresh after providing proper opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.
No grounds to interfere. Dismissed.