Civil Court Cannot Adopt "Shortcuts" To Dispose Case Even If Higher Court Ordered Expeditious Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The bench comprising Justice Subodh Abhyankar added that in case of any difficulty, the trial court is always at liberty to seek guidance from the High Court-

From the record it is apparent that the learned Judge of the trial Court has recalled its own order dated 07.12.2019, whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs to call for certain documents of their ancestor was allowed. The reason for such recall is stated to be to expedite the trial as it is pending since long and as per the directions issued by the High Court, these matters have to be disposed of at an early date. In the considered opinion of this Court only for disposal of a case, which is pending since long, no such order can be passed by the Civil Court by adopting a shortcut method, even if there are directions issued by the High Court to expedite the trial. In case of any difficulty, the learned Judge of the trial Court was expected to take guidance from the High Court, but to resort to such measure, i.e., to recall its own order and snap the further right of the plaintiffs to lead evidence only for the disposal's sake, is a procedure alien to the CPC and by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be legal, just or proper.

Facts of the case were that the Petitioners/Plaintiffs had instituted a suit against the Respondents/Defendants for Partition and for seeking Declaration and Permanent Injunction. When the suit reached the stage of recording of evidence, the Petitioner had moved application under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC for production of certain documents. The said application was allowed by the trial court, thereby directing the production of documents. However, the respective documents could not be produced on multiple occasions.

Considering that it was ordered by the Court to expedite the trial, the trial court recalled its earlier order whereby it had allowed the Petitioner’s application under OXVI R1 CPC. Later, the lower court also closed the rights of the Petitioner to lead evidence. Aggrieved, the Petitioner moved the Court.

The Petitioners submitted before the Court that the court below had virtually reviewed its own order which was not permissible under the law. It was further argued that their right to lead evidence was also closed for no fault of theirs. Thus, it was asserted that both the impugned orders were liable to be set aside.

Per contra, the Respondents/Defendants argued that the Petitioners were only interested in prolonging the trial. It was pointed out that the Respondents had sought to examine only two witnesses who were aged 88 and 90 years old, respectively and that the Petitioners wanted to ensure that they never take the stand. Therefore, it was submitted that the impugned orders did not suffer from any illegality.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court found merit in the submissions put forth by the Petitioner. It noted that the trial court recalled its own order and closed the rights of the Plaintiffs to lead evidence just to expedite the trial. This procedure, the Court observed, was alien to the Code of Civil Procedure and by no stretch of imagination could be said to be legal.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court set aside the impugned orders. It further directed that the rights of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs to lead evidence be restored. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.

Case Title: Shailesh Shastri & Ors. v. Avdhesh (Deceased) & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (MP) 14

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment