Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Piyush Kumar vs Ravindra Nath on 25 July, 2023
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1764/2022
Piyush Kumar S/o Shri Natwarlal Joshi, Aged About 59 Years, By
Caste Brahman, Resident Of Housing Board Colony, Udaipur-
Jaipur Link Road, District Banswara, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Ravindra Nath S/o Late Shri Ranchod Nath, R/o 3,
Ratitalai, District Banswara, Rajasthan.
2. Vinod Kumar Katua S/o Shri Mohan Lal Ji Katua, R/o Nai
Aabadi, District Banswara, Rajasthan.
3. Pranav Pandya S/o Shri Jayprakash Pandya,, R/o Mohan
Colony, District Banswara, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suniel Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment Reserved on 19/07/2023 Pronounced on 25/07/2023
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioner that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-
I. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 07.01.2022 (Annex-9) passed by the District Judge, Banswara, in Civil Original Case No.22/2007 may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside and consequently, the application preferred by the respondent-plaintiff may kindly be dismissed.
II. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
III. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 03:16:50 AM)
(2 of 6) [CW-1764/2022]
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the respondents-plaintiffs instituted a civil suit in the year 2007 before the learned District Judge, Banswara for possession and permanent injunction against the petitioner-defendant; whereafter, the petitioner-defendant filed a counter claim; thereafter, the learned Court below proceeded with the trial. The learned Court below, after giving various opportunities to the respondents-plaintiffs, closed the evidence, while posting the matter for final arguments on 06.12.2021; the matter was heard finally and concluded, and the judgment was reserved.
2.1. After the arguments were concluded finally in the suit, the respondents-plaintiffs filed an application under Order 17 Rule 3 read with Order 18 Rule 2 & 17 read with Section 151 CPC for providing one more opportunity to the respondents-plaintiffs to lead the evidence. The petitioner filed reply to the said application. Thereafter, vide the impugned order dated 07.01.2022, the said application was allowed by the learned Court below. Thus, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that reopening the evidence of the respondents-plaintiffs is completely misconceived inasmuch as the matter was posted for final judgment on 20.12.2021.
3.1. It was further submitted that the application in question was filed at a belated stage and the respondents-plaintiffs were given several opportunities to lead their evidence, but the respondents- (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 03:16:50 AM)
(3 of 6) [CW-1764/2022] plaintiffs filed the application, after the final arguments in the suit were concluded and the judgment was reserved. Thus, as per learned counsel, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is not sustainable in the eye of law.
3.2. It was also submitted that the application in question itself was totally misconceived, and thus, in view thereof, the learned Court below ought not have exercised its power to reopen the evidence of the respondents-plaintiffs.
3.3. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Rajasthan Financial Coproration Vs. Pukhraj Jain & Ors. (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 773 of 2000, decided on 24.10.2000); and the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Smt. Savith Ramma & Ors. Vs Sri Hanumappa @ Mariyappa & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 32230-32231/2009, decided on 20.10.2010).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-defendant, submitted that the respondents-planitiffs have filed an affidavit of Chief Examination of the witnesses, namely, Pranav Pandya and Ravindranath Bhandari on 05.10.2017 i.e. before closure of the plaintiffs' evidence.
4.1. It was further submitted that the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses has already been recorded before closure of the (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 03:16:50 AM) (4 of 6) [CW-1764/2022] evidence, and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is justified in law.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case along with the judgments cited at the Bar.
6. This Court observes that the respondents-planitiffs filed the aforementioned suit against the petitioner before the learned District Judge, Banswara; the learned Court below proceeded with the trial and after affording several opportunities, closed the plaintiffs' evidence. Thereafter, the matter was finally heard and reserved and the date for pronouncement of judgment was also fixed. Subsequently, the respondents-planitiffs filed the application in question for opportunity to lead the evidence; the said application was allowed by the learned Court below vide the impugned order dated 07.01.2022.
7. This Court, at this juncture, considers it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered in the case of Rajasthan Financial Coproration Vs. Pukhraj Jain & Ors (Supra), as hereunder:
"2. The only point to be decided in the case is whether a party could move an application after the final arguments in the case were heard and the case was reserved for judgment.
3. In Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar (AIR 1964 SC 993) in para 19, the Supreme Court has observed as under:--
"In the present context when once the hearing starts, the Code contemplates only two stages in the trial of the suit: (1) where the hearing is adjourned or (2) where the hearing is completed. Where the hearing is completed the parties have no further rights or privilages in the matter and it is only for the convenience of the Court that O. XX R. 1 permits judgment to be delivered after an (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 03:16:50 AM) (5 of 6) [CW-1764/2022] interval after the hearing is completed..."There is thus no hiatus between the two stages of reservation of judgment and pronouncing the judgment so as to make it necessary for the Court to afford to the party the remedy of getting orders passed on the lines of O. IX R. 7."
4. In view of this clear pronouncement, which is being on this Court, no further discussion is in fact necessary but as my attention has been drawn to several decisions some of which try to distinguish the aforesaid decision in Arjun Singh's case (supra), I consider it my duty to refer to and discuss the citations cited at the Bar.
10........The trial court has jurisdiction not to pronounce the judgment on a particular date and fix it again for rehearing or for any other purpose if it finds itself unable to pronounce the judgment for want of documents or any other reason. The decision in Arjun Singh's case does not of course mean that the trial court is power less after it closed the case for judgment and has to pronounce the judgment in all circumstances. But the decision of the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh's case (supra) clearly lays down that for the parties, there is no hiatus between closure of the case for judgment and pronouncement of the judgment and therefore, the parties cannot move any application as there is no stage is between closure of the case for pronouncement of the judgment and actual pronouncement of the judgment.."
8. This Court further observes that in the present case, the learned Court below heard the matter finally on 06.12.2021 and fixed date for pronouncement of the final judgment i.e. 20.12.2021; thereafter, the respondent filed the aforementioned application on 10.12.2021.
9. This Court also observes that in the suit filed by the respondents in the year 2007 i.e. 15 years ago, despite being afforded several opportunities to lead evidence, the respondents (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 03:16:50 AM) (6 of 6) [CW-1764/2022] failed to do so, and when the matter was finally heard and the date for pronouncement of final judgment was also fixed, the respondents moved the application in question seeking further opportunity to lead evidence, which cannot be permissible under the law, and thus, the learned Court ought not have allowed the said application vide the impugned order. This observation derives strength also from the precedent law laid down in the case Arjun Kumar Vs Mohinder kumar (Supra) by the Hon'ble Apex Court and followed by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Rajasthan Financial Coproration Vs. Pukhraj Jain & Ors (Supra). Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
10. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.01.2022 (Annexure-9) passed by the learned Court below in Civil Suit No.22/2007 (CIS No.125/2014) - Shri Ravindranath & Ors. Vs. Shri Piyush Kumar, is quashed and set aside. All pending applications stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
SKant/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 03:16:50 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)