Friday, March 29, 2019

Contesting parties to the suit must get fair opportunity to contest the suit on merits

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL Nos.3282­3283 OF 2019

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.20295­20296 of 2017)

Rajinder Tiwari ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Kedar Nath(Deceased) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors.               ….Respondent(s)                  

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

 1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against  the final judgment and order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the   High   Court   of   Delhi   at   New   Delhi   in   R.S.A. 1 No.188 of 2010 whereby the High Court allowed the RSA filed by the respondents herein and order dated 26.04.2017 in CM(Application) No.46865 of 2016 by which the High Court  dismissed the application for re­hearing   of   the   second   appeal   filed   by   the appellant herein.

3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of the appeals, which involve a short point.

4. The appellant is the plaintiff and the original respondent   (now   represented   by   his   legal representatives) is the defendant in the civil suit out of which these appeals arise.

5. The appellant(plaintiff)  filed  Civil Suit No. 147 of 2007  against the original respondent(defendant) in   the   Court   of   Senior   Civil   Judge­cum­Rent Controller(North East Dist.),  Karkardooma Courts, Delhi for permanent injunction in relation to the suit property.  2


6. It is not in dispute that 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. 

7. The plaintiff then adduced his evidence. The defendant,  however, could only cross­examine the plaintiff's witnesses without his defence for want of written statement. 

8.    By judgment/decree dated 01.02.2010, 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.

 9.   By   judgment   dated   26.07.2010,   the   first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and upheld 3 the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge. 

10. The defendant felt aggrieved and filed second appeal in the High Court of Delhi. By order dated 03.11.2016,   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 re­hearing of the second appeal but the same was dismissed by order dated 26.04.2017.  Against both the orders, the appellant(plaintiff) has filed the present   appeals   by   way   of   special   leave   in   this Court.

11. So,     the   short   question,   which   arises   for consideration in these appeals, is whether the High Court   was   justified   in   allowing   the   defendant's second   appeal   and   was,     therefore,     justified   in dismissing the plaintiff's (appellant’s herein) suit. 4

12. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow these appeals and while setting aside the impugned orders, remand the case to the Trial Court (Senior Civil Judge) for trying the civil suit afresh on merits in accordance with law.

13. In our considered opinion, the need to remand the case to the Senior Civil Judge for trying the civil suit afresh on merits has occasioned for more than one reason.

14. First, we find that the trial in the suit has not been done satisfactorily inasmuch as the defendant was not afforded an adequate opportunity to file his written statement. 

15. Second,   in   the   absence   of   any   written statement,   the   defendant   could   neither   adduce proper evidence nor file any documentary evidence in support of his case.  5

16. Third, 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.     In   our   view,   it   caused prejudice to both the parties.

17. Fourth, we do not find any justifiable 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.

18. 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. 6

19. It is for these reasons, we are of the view  that these appeals deserve to be allowed and matter is remitted to the Trial Court for deciding the civil suit afresh on merits in accordance with law. 

20. The respondents herein (legal representatives of original defendant) are accordingly granted liberty to   file   their   written   statement   within   one   month from the date of their appearance in the suit. The Trial Court will thereafter frame issues arising in the suit on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and then allow the parties to adduce their evidence in addition to the evidence already adduced. The parties   will   also   be   allowed   to   file   additional documents, if they so wish. 

21. The   Trial   Court   will   decide   the   suit   on   the basis of the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties uninfluenced by any judgment passed by the Courts in this Case on the earlier occasion.  7

22. We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issue while having formed an opinion to remand the case to the Trial Court. 

3. Let   the   trial   be   completed   within   one   year. Parties   to   appear   before   the   Senior   Civil   Judge (North East District), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on 02.04.2019.     

24. The appeals thus succeed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the suit is restored to its original file for being tried on merits as indicated above.                                            .………...................................J.                                    [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]          


                                …...……..................................J.              [DINESH MAHESHWARI]

New Delhi; March 28, 2019 8