Whether case closed for judgment can be reopened on ground of ill health of Advocate of defendant?
Therefore, it is clear that even after a case is reserved for judgment, the case can be reopened for consideration of an application, but the Court should exercise that power very sparingly, provided sufficient and valid grounds are made out for not invoking Court's jurisdiction before conclusion of arguments. It is quite common that a party, who is in advantageous position having obtained an interim order or who derives benefit in one way or the other due to delay or has a weak case does not allow a suit to be decided. He resorts to all types of tactics to keep the proceedings pending. So once the Court notices this kind of a situation, they must not be lenient. If by reading of an application, it is possible to make out that the applications are made only with a view to protracting or procrastinating the proceedings by abusing the process of Court and law, such applications can be outrightly rejected even without calling for objections. Inviting objections from the opponent party arises only if the reasons given in the affidavit give rise to prima facie satisfaction of their truthfulness.
It is the further observation of the first Appellate Court, which appears to be correct also, that the defendants' counsel was not keeping good health from 10.9.2010 to 30.10.2010. That means when P.W. 2 was examined for the first time on 25.8.2010 and then case was adjourned to 7.9.2010, counsel was supposed to be well. No reason is given as to why the counsel did not appear before the Court at least on 25.8.2010 and 7.9.2010. As has been observed by the first Appellate Court, the counsel was treated as an outpatient for hypertension and diabetes at a hospital at Lathur where one of the appellants, namely Leeladevi is also residing. It is not known why at least one of the appellants did not make any effort to make alternative arrangement for the smooth conduct of their case when their counsel was not keeping good health. This conduct of the appellants would only disclose that the reasons that they gave before the trial Court for reopening of the case were highly unbelievable. The first Appellate Court also observed that the appellants could have got filed an affidavit from their previous counsel in support of their case. For all these reasons, if the first Appellate Court doubted bona fides in the conduct of the appellants and dismissed the Appeal without remanding the case to the trial Court, I do not find any illegality in it. It is not as though appellants were not at all given any opportunity while the evidence was being recorded in the trial Court. They did not avail the reasonable opportunity given to them. From their conduct if the appellants disentitled themselves to claim any indulgence by the trial Court, it is they who are responsible. The circumstances as can be made out from these developments did not warrant remand of the case to the trial Court by the first Appellate Court.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (DHARWAD BENCH)
R.S.A. No. 5939/2013
Decided On: 02.06.2017
Leeladevi and Ors. Vs.Narayan and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J.
Citation: AIR 2017(NOC) 922 karnat
