Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

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