-
by sayum
21 May 2026 3:43 PM
“Withdrawal of Partition Suit Without Hearing Defendants Violates Natural Justice” – In a significant judgment reinforcing procedural fairness in civil litigation, the Gujarat High Court held that a partition suit cannot be unilaterally withdrawn by plaintiffs without issuing notice to co-defendant co-sharers, particularly those who support the suit and seek to continue it.
Justice Maulik J. Shelat allowed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, quashing the Lok Adalat order dated 03/08/2019, which had permitted withdrawal of a partition suit ex parte, without notifying other co-sharers.
“Trial Court Referred Matter to Lok Adalat Without Giving Reasonable Opportunity of Hearing to Co-Defendants”: Mandatory Safeguards Under Section 20 of Legal Services Authorities Act Ignored
The case revolved around Special Civil Suit No. 158 of 2016 filed before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surat, seeking partition, declaration, and injunction over ancestral properties. The suit was filed by respondents (original plaintiffs) asserting their Class-I heirship in the estate of Late Jayantibhai Harishbhai, while the petitioners (Defendants Nos. 20 and 21)—daughters of Harishbhai—also claimed equal rights in the suit properties.
Though aligned in interest with the plaintiffs, the petitioners were neither notified nor served with the withdrawal application (purshish) filed by the plaintiffs. The trial court took up the matter out of turn, listed it before the Lok Adalat, and disposed of the suit as withdrawn on the basis of an ex parte application, in complete disregard of the mandatory provisions of Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
Justice Shelat strongly condemned this procedural lapse, holding:
“The suit in question could not have been referred in Lok Adalat by the Court without giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners—defendant Nos. 20 and 21.”
Co-Defendants Were Supporting the Suit, Yet Kept in the Dark
The suit originally sought a declaration that sale deeds executed in 1989 and 2011 by the predecessor-in-title were null and void, claiming the suit properties were ancestral and indivisible without the consent of all heirs.
The petitioners—defendants in the suit—had expressly supported the prayers of the plaintiffs and were contesting the alienation of ancestral properties. Despite their stake and support for the suit, they were not informed about the withdrawal proceedings.
As revealed in the High Court’s judgment, the plaintiffs filed an application below Exhibit 80 on 29 July 2019, requesting the suit be taken on board, followed by a withdrawal purshish (Exhibit 81) the same day. The suit was disposed of on 3 August 2019 by the 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat, via Lok Adalat proceedings—without notice to petitioners or other defendants.
Maintainability of Petition Under Article 227 Against Lok Adalat Orders
Respondents had objected to the writ being filed only under Article 227 and not Article 226. Dismissing the objection, the Court held:
“A writ application filed only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the Trial Court in Lok Adalat, is maintainable.”
Citing State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 660 and Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy, (2018) 13 SCC 480, the Court reiterated that Article 227 alone suffices to challenge Lok Adalat awards on limited grounds such as jurisdictional error and violation of natural justice.
Violation of Section 20 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
The Court found that the Trial Court acted illegally by referring the suit to Lok Adalat without hearing all affected parties. The mandatory requirement of “reasonable opportunity of being heard” under Section 20(1)(i)(b) and (ii) of the 1987 Act was clearly not followed.
“Before referring the suit in question in Lok Adalat, no such reasonable opportunity being offered to the petitioners/defendant Nos. 20 and 21 by the Court concerned... the impugned order came to be passed, albeit in Lok Adalat, without observing the principles of natural justice.”
The Court emphasized that even an ex parte withdrawal order violates equity and fairness when the suit involves co-sharers in ancestral property.
Right to Seek Transposition as Plaintiffs Under Order XXIII Rule 1-A CPC
Justice Shelat recognized that the petitioners had equal interest in the suit properties and thus had a statutory right to seek transposition as plaintiffs under Order XXIII Rule 1-A if the original plaintiffs chose to withdraw.
The judgment observed:
“Even if plaintiffs want to withdraw the suit, defendant Nos. 20 and 21 have a right to be transposed as plaintiffs. It is submitted that had there been an opportunity given... they could have applied for transposition.”
The denial of this opportunity was held to be a denial of substantive rights rooted in equity and procedure.
The Court quashed the order dated 3 August 2019, along with the decree, and restored Special Civil Suit No. 158 of 2016 to its original file. The matter is to resume from the stage of filing the withdrawal purshish (Exh. 81).
Notably, the Court:
This judgment is a powerful reaffirmation that procedural fairness is not optional—particularly in cases involving family property and partition. The Gujarat High Court has made it clear that co-sharers cannot be excluded from withdrawal or settlement processes, especially when they have a right to continue the suit in their own name.
By enforcing compliance with Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act and Order XXIII Rule 1-A CPC, the Court has set a clear precedent that Lok Adalat settlements must meet legal and procedural standards, not just paper over disputes.
Date of Decision: 3 November 2025
