-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
Failure to Appear in Court for 16 Years Shows Negligence—No Leniency Can Be Granted - In a strongly worded judgment Gujarat High Court dismissed a petition filed by Bhupendrabhai Nagjibhai Jogiyani, who sought to reopen proceedings in a civil suit after remaining absent for 16 years. The Court ruled that "litigants cannot sleep over their rights and wake up at the last minute, expecting the court to reopen matters that have reached the stage of final judgment."
Dismissing the plea, the Court observed, “Judicial discipline requires that parties act diligently. A litigant who has ignored proceedings for 16 years cannot be permitted to re-enter the case at the final stage merely by claiming ignorance of the suit.”
"Land Dispute Turns Into a Long Legal Battle—Can a Party Claim Ignorance for 16 Years?"
The case originated from Special Civil Suit No. 380 of 2009, filed before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), where the plaintiffs challenged multiple sale deeds and sought a declaration and injunction concerning a non-agricultural land parcel in Sanand, Ahmedabad, measuring 18,218 square meters.
The defendant, Bhupendrabhai Nagjibhai Jogiyani (Defendant No. 13), was served with notice of the suit in September 2009. However, instead of appearing in court, he chose to remain absent, leading the trial court to proceed ex-parte against him. The case was later transferred to Sanand Civil Court as Special Civil Suit No. 86 of 2017, and after years of hearings, it reached the stage of final judgment in 2025.
At this critical stage, Jogiyani suddenly filed an application (Exh. 38) seeking to reopen the case, claiming he was never personally served with notice and had only recently learned about the suit. The trial court rejected his application, and he approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the rejection.
"Notice Was Served, but Defendant Ignored It—Can He Claim Lack of Knowledge?"
The key issue before the High Court was whether Jogiyani had been properly served with legal notice and whether his prolonged absence was justified. The petitioner argued that:
• He never received the notice personally; it was handed over to his wife in 2009.
• He was unaware of the proceedings until 2024, when his lawyer discovered the case.
• His right to file a written statement and cross-examine the plaintiffs should be restored.
Rejecting these claims, the High Court ruled, “Service of notice upon a family member residing in the same household is valid service under Order V Rule 15 of the CPC. A defendant cannot evade the proceedings for 16 years and then claim ignorance.”
The Court found that the trial court had duly issued fresh notices in 2018 after the case was transferred to Sanand Court, and yet, the defendant still failed to appear. The Court observed: "When a litigant remains absent for 16 years despite due process being followed, the court cannot encourage such conduct by reopening proceedings at the final stage."
"Defendants Must Be Diligent—Courts Cannot Encourage Deliberate Delay Tactics"
The High Court cited Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala (2018 SC 481), where the Supreme Court ruled that: "Litigants have a duty to be vigilant about their legal rights. Courts cannot condone inordinate delays unless there is a compelling reason for failure to appear."
The Court held that Jogiyani’s argument that he only recently became aware of the suit was unbelievable, stating: “It is hard to accept that for 16 years, his wife never informed him about receiving the court notice. Such claims defy logic and indicate a deliberate attempt to delay proceedings.”
"Reopening a Case at the Stage of Judgment Would Set a Dangerous Precedent"
The Court also addressed the broader impact of granting such requests, warning that: "If litigants are allowed to reopen cases after ignoring them for decades, it will undermine the entire judicial system and delay justice indefinitely."
The Court emphasized that judicial delays are already a major concern and that granting relief to negligent litigants would create a dangerous precedent where parties could deliberately evade proceedings and later demand to be heard.
"High Court’s Supervisory Powers Under Article 227 Do Not Extend to Correcting Every Delay"
Jogiyani’s lawyer argued that the High Court had supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to intervene and set aside the trial court’s rejection of his application. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating: "The High Court cannot act as an appellate court under Article 227. It only intervenes where there is a gross miscarriage of justice. In this case, the trial court acted correctly in refusing to accommodate an extremely delayed plea."
The Court cited Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329, where the Supreme Court ruled that:
"High Courts must exercise Article 227 powers sparingly, only when there is a manifest failure of justice. The power cannot be misused to correct ordinary procedural decisions of trial courts."
"A Litigant Who Ignores Proceedings for 16 Years Cannot Demand a Fresh Hearing"
Dismissing the petition, the High Court upheld the trial court’s rejection of the application, ruling that:
• Service of notice upon the wife of the defendant was valid under CPC.
• The defendant’s claim of ignorance was unconvincing, given the prolonged delay.
• Reopening the case at the final judgment stage would set a dangerous precedent.
• The High Court’s supervisory powers cannot be used to condone deliberate negligence.
The Court refused to interfere with the trial court’s order, stating: "A litigant who chooses to ignore proceedings for 16 years cannot expect the judicial system to bend over backward to accommodate his negligence. Justice cannot wait indefinitely for those who fail to exercise their legal rights in a timely manner."
The petition was dismissed with costs, ensuring that the trial court could proceed with its judgment without further delay.
Date of Decision: 05 March 2025
