The Patna High Court, while dismissing a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 25.07.2017 passed by the learned Sub Judge whereby the learned Sub Judge had rejected the petition dated 30.05.2017 filed by the petitioner, held that there is no merit in the claim of the petitioner that the learned trial court did not consider the facts and circumstances of the case while passing the impugned order.
Brief Facts:
The petitioners are defendants before the learned trial court whereas the respondent nos. 1, 2, and 4 are the plaintiffs. The petitioner and respondent nos. 5 and 6 are legal heirs of one Paras Thakur who was the original defendant. During the pendency of the suit, original defendant Paras Thakur died and his legal heirs/representatives were substituted in his place, who are petitioner and respondent nos. 5 to 7 herein. A petition was filed by the petitioner, making a prayer to reopen the case and allowing them to adduce the evidence, which was allowed. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed a petition to allow them to adduce evidence. However, the learned trial court rejected the petition. Hence, the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial court committed an error while passing the impugned order. The learned trial court did not consider that the instant petition was filed by the heirs/legal representatives of the defendant and the gift deed executed in favor of defendant no.1 is an important document and it was necessary that the defendants be given an opportunity to adduce their evidence for the ends of justice.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. He argued that in the garb of the petition, the petitioner is seeking a review of the order dated 29.03.2017. The learned trial court already considered the prayer of the petitioner/defendants and allowed them to adduce evidence on the limited point of execution of the gift deed and this order was not challenged, therefore, it attained finality.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the petitioner and other defendants had previously moved before the learned trial court seeking reopening of their evidence and making prayer for allowing them to adduce their evidence in support of their case and that petition was disposed of by the learned trial court allowing it in part.
The Court observed that the petitioner and other defendants are precluded from moving another petition with the same prayer as they have not challenged the earlier order. So, there is no merit in the claim of the petitioner that the learned trial court did not consider the facts and circumstances of the case while passing the impugned order.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the order dated 25.07.2017 is sustained.
Case Title: Sanjay Thakur v Satya Narayan Sharma & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Dr. Anshuman
Case no.: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1627 of 2017
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Kumar
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Bijendra Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
