Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

Gujarat High Court: Ex-Parte Order Set Aside in family dispute case, Defendant Granted a Fresh Opportunity to Present Evidence

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent order, the Gujarat High Court setting aside an ex-parte order and granting the defendant a fresh chance to present evidence in the case of Family Suit No. 458 of 2012. The bench, comprising Justices Ashutosh Shastri and Divyesh A. Joshi, emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity to litigants and stressed that courts should not pass ex-parte decrees without cogent reasons supporting such decisions.

The case pertained to a matrimonial dispute, where the appellant-wife had filed an application that was rejected by the trial court. The court further noted that despite specific directions to file written submissions within ten days, the appellant-wife failed to take any action, leading to the closure of her rights by the court below.

Learned advocate Mr. Dave, representing the respondent-husband, contended that the appellant had not challenged the rejection of her application in any higher forum, and thus, it had attained finality. Moreover, the respondent-husband had presented uncontroverted evidence, which the defendant-wife had not challenged.

However, the High Court observed that the trial court’s ex-parte order lacked concrete conclusions and failed to adequately examine the material evidence presented by the plaintiff. The Court held that “every conclusion must be well supported by adequate reasons,” and it was necessary to provide a fair opportunity to the appellant-wife to defend herself.

The judgment stated, “Simply because the defendant’s right is closed down or proceedings have not been attended while passing decree, at least the stand of the plaintiff deserves to be examined at length.” The Court emphasized that a judgment should contain a brief summary of facts, evidence produced by the plaintiff, and the reasoning for decreeing or dismissing the suit.

The Gujarat High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the ex-parte order, remanding the matter back to the trial court. The Court directed the trial court to take a fresh decision on the case within six months, considering all the relevant evidence and providing a fair opportunity to both parties.

 Date of Decision: 13 July 2023

TARLOCHAN SEHMI  Vs RAJIV RAMNIKLAL ZAVERI

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Tarlochan_Sehmi_W_O_Rajiv_Zaveri_vs_Rajiv_Ramniklal_Zaveri_on_13_July_2023_Guj.HC_.pdf"]

Latest Legal News