Granting Bail Does Not Shield Foreign Nationals from Executive Action on Visa Violations: Delhi High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Misused to Resolve Substantive Disputes or Replace Execution Mechanisms: P&H High Court Eviction Proceedings Must Follow Principles of Natural Justice: Telangana High Court Quashes Eviction Order under Senior Citizens Act Limitation Law | Sufficient Cause Cannot Be Liberally Interpreted If Negligence or Inaction Is Apparent: Gujarat High Court Mere Pendency of Lease Renewal Requests Does Not Constitute Bona Fide Dispute: Calcutta High Court Upholds Eviction Proceedings Under Public Premises Act CGST | Declaratory Nature of Safari Retreats Ruling Mandates Reassessment of Input Tax Credit Claims: Kerala High Court Changing Rules of the Game Mid-Way Violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution: Rajasthan High Court Disapproval of a Relationship Does Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide Without Direct Instigation or Mens Rea: Supreme Court Limitation Period Under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act Cannot Defeat Victim’s Right to Compensation: Gujarat High Court Maintenance To Wife Cannot Be a Precondition for Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 438 CrPC Court Cannot Rewrite Contract When Vendor Lacks Ownership of the Property: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Appeal for Specific Performance Royalty Can Be Levied on Minor Minerals Like Brick Earth, Irrespective of Land Ownership: Supreme Court Bail in Heinous Crimes Must Be Granted with Adequate Reasons and Judicial Scrutiny: Supreme Court Judicial Review in Disciplinary Cases Is Limited to Fairness, Not Reappreciation of Evidence: Supreme Court Prolonged Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Criminalized as Rape on False Promise of Marriage: Madras High Court No Interference in Judgments Without Perversity or Legal Error Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh HC

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"]

Similar News