Trademark Dispute Over ‘Pe’ Settled Between Phone Pe and Bharat Pe  ||  Centre Starts Granting Citizenship Under CAA in West Bengal, Haryana and Uttarakhand  ||  Circular Regarding Prioritizing Cases of Litigants/Advocates with Disability, Issued by Delhi HC  ||  Del. HC: Free Wi-fi Facility Launched by Delhi High Court for Lawyers, General Public  ||  Ker. HC: Construction of Illegal Religious Structures Cannot be Permitted on Government Land  ||  Kar. HC: De-Nomination of Chairman of Minorities Commission by Govt. Before Term is Not Arbitrary  ||  Delhi High Court: Question of Property Title Can’t be Decided by Forums Under Senior Citizens Act  ||  Jh. HC: Can’t Cancel Bail Unless There is Violation of Bail Conditions or Accused Impedes Fair Trial  ||  Guidelines Issued by Delhi High Court for Trial Court Judges to Decide Transfer Applications  ||  P&H HC: Presence of Magistrate Mandatory to Prove Compliance With Section 52A of the NDPS Act    

Rajinder Tiwari Vs. Kedar Nath (Deceased) thr. L.Rs. and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (28 Mar 2019)

A decision rendered by Courts in an unsatisfactory conducting of trial of suit is not legally sustainable

MANU/SC/0430/2019

Civil

The Appellant (Plaintiff) filed Civil Suit against the original Respondent (Defendant) for permanent injunction in relation to the suit property. The Defendant's right to file the written statement was closed by the Senior Civil Judge with the result, the Defendant could not file his written statement and nor could file any documentary evidence.

By judgment/decree, the Senior Civil Judge decreed the Plaintiff's suit by passing a decree for permanent injunction as prayed by him. The Defendant felt aggrieved and filed first appeal before the Additional District Judge. By judgment, the first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. The Defendant felt aggrieved and filed second appeal in the High Court. The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment of the first Appellate Court and dismissed the Plaintiff's (Appellant's herein) suit. Thereafter the Plaintiff filed application for re-hearing of the second appeal but the same was dismissed. Against both the orders, the Appellant (Plaintiff) has filed the present appeals by way of special leave in this Court.

The trial in the suit has not been done satisfactorily as the Defendant was not afforded an adequate opportunity to file his written statement. In the absence of any written statement, the Defendant could neither adduce proper evidence nor file any documentary evidence in support of his case. The rights of the parties were, therefore, decided by the two Courts (Trial Court and First Appellate Court) by decreeing the suit and the High Court by dismissing the suit on the basis of insufficient evidence. It caused prejudice to both the parties.

There was no reason to deny the Defendant of his right to file the written statement. He was entitled to file the written statement and to adduce oral and documentary evidence for contesting the suit on merits. It is a settled law that all the contesting parties to the suit must get fair opportunity to contest the suit on merits in accordance with law. A decision rendered by the Courts in an unsatisfactory conducting of the trial of the suit is not legally sustainable. It is regardless of the fact that in whose favour the decision in the trial may go. Matter is remitted to the trial Court for deciding the civil suit afresh on merits in accordance with law. Appeal allowed

Tags : FAIR OPPORTUNITY   RIGHT TO CONTEST   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved