Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9983/2008 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9983 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
RAIBEN
REVABHAI SOLANKI & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
PATEL
SOMABHAI SHANKARBHAI - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
TEJAS P SATTA for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5,1.2.6 - 2.
Mr.
Mahendra K. Patel for Respondent(s) :
,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 11/08/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. Rule.
Mr. M.K. Patel, wavies service of rule on behalf of the respondent.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final
hearing today.
2. By
way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
challenging the order passed by the learned trial Court passed below
Exh. 108 dated 12.3.2008 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 16 of 1998,
by which the learned trial Court has dismissed the application
submitted by the petitioners to re-open their right to lead evidence.
3. It
appears from the record and impugned order that learned trial Court
passed an order to close the right of the plaintiffs to lead the
evidence on 13.2.2007 and thereafter the impugned application was
submitted by the plaintiffs on 24.7.2007 requesting to re-open their
right to lead evidence. However, the learned trial Court was of the
opinion that the application was submitted belatedly, the learned
trial Court dismissed the said application. Considering the fact that
even thereafter also the matter has not proceeded further and to take
away the right of the plaintiffs to lead the evidence would be to
harsh and would be doing injustice, the learned trial Court ought to
have reopened the right of the plaintiffs to lead the evidence.
4. Even,
in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that
there was a long delay in submitting the application to re-open their
right to lead evidence.
5. For
the reasons stated above, the petition succeeds. The impugned order
passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Vadnagar dated 12.3.2008
in Regular Civil Suit No. 16 of 1998 passed below Exh. 108 is hereby
quashed and set aside and the application Exh. 108 is allowed and the
right of the plaintiffs to lead the evidence is reopened. The learned
trial Court is directed to decide and dispose of the suit
expeditiously. Rule is made absolute accordingly. In the facts and
circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
(M.R.SHAH,
J)
Kaushik
Top