Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa 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