Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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