Conviction Under Section 326 IPC Requires Proof of ‘Dangerous Weapon’ – Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Section 325 IPC Marital Disputes Must Not Become Never-Ending Legal Battles – Supreme Court Ends 12-Year-Long Litigation with Final Settlement Denial of Pre-Charge Evidence is a Violation of Fair Trial: Supreme Court Restores Complainant’s Right to Testify Slum Redevelopment Cannot Be Held Hostage by a Few Dissenters – Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Eviction Notices Termination of Judicial Probationers Without Inquiry Violates Principles of Natural Justice – Allahabad High Court Quashes Discharge Orders A Celebrity’s Name is Not Public Property – No One Can Exploit It Without Consent – High Court Bars Release of Film Titled ‘Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar’ Truck Driver's Negligence Fully Established – No Contributory Negligence by Car Driver: Delhi High Court Enhances Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Stamp Duty Demand After 15 Years is Legally Unsustainable – Karnataka High Court Quashes Proceedings Licensees Cannot Claim Adverse Possession, Says Kerala High Court No Evidence Directly Implicating Acquitted Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in ₹55 Lakh Bank Fraud Compensatory Aspect of Cheque Bounce Cases Must Be Given Priority Over Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Cannot Be Granted When Prima Facie Evidence Links Accused to Terrorist Activities—Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Under UAPA" Statutory Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Without Justifiable Grounds—Calcutta High Court Reinstates Bail for NIA Case Accused Juvenile Justice Cannot Be Ignored for Heinous Crimes—Bail to Minor in Murder Case Upheld: Delhi High Court Litigants Cannot Sleep Over Their Rights and Wake Up at the Last Minute: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea to Reopen Ex-Parte Case After 16 Years Economic Offenses With Deep-Rooted Conspiracies Must Be Treated Differently—Bail Cannot Be Granted Lightly: Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Bail in ₹5.39 Crore Money Laundering Case Tenant Cannot Deny Landlord’s Title Once Property Is Sold—Eviction Upheld: Jharkhand High Court Pending Criminal Case Cannot Be a Ground to Deny Passport Renewal Unless Cognizance Is Taken by Court: Karnataka High Court Conviction Cannot Rest on Suspicion—Kerala High Court Acquits Mother and Son in Murder Case Over Flawed Evidence Seized Assets Cannot Be Released During Trial—Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Gali Janardhan Reddy’s Plea for Gold and Bonds Remarriage Cannot Disqualify a Widow From Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Unregistered Sale Agreement Gives No Right to Possession—Madras High Court Rejects Injunction Against Property Owners

Litigants Cannot Sleep Over Their Rights and Wake Up at the Last Minute: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea to Reopen Ex-Parte Case After 16 Years

14 March 2025 2:31 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


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
 

Similar News