TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Orders Closure of Plaintiffs' Evidence for Non-Compliance</h1> The court ordered the closure of the plaintiffs' evidence due to repeated non-compliance and procedural delays, leading to the dismissal of their suit for ... Partition of property - joint property or not - failure to file affidavits by plaintiffs. Held that:- The evidence of the plaintiffs is liable to be closed mainly on the two reasons; firstly he has referred to section 35 of the cpc that the cost has not been paid by the plaintiffs and in failure to do so, the plaintiffs are not entitled to proceed further with the matter and secondly he states that more than four adjournments have been granted and the plaintiffs right to adduce the evidence is liable to be closed. The evidence of the plaintiffs is liable to be closed. Even otherwise, this Court is doubtful if the plaintiffs have any case on merit against the defendant in view of the pleadings of the parties and documents produced. This is a fit case for closing the evidence of the plaintiffs - suits of plaintiffs dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Ownership of the suit property.2. Plaintiffs' failure to produce evidence.3. Adjournments and procedural delays.4. Application of legal precedents and procedural rules.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Ownership of the Suit Property:The plaintiffs, Mr. Raj Kumar Arora and Mr. Satish Arora, filed a suit for partition of the property located at C-135-136, New Multan Nagar, Delhi-110056, claiming it as joint property. The defendant, Ajay Kumar, contended that the property was his self-acquired asset, purchased via a sale deed dated 7th August 1980, and constructed between 1985 and 1987. He asserted sole ownership, stating the plaintiffs had no right, title, or interest in the property. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs' documents, Ikrarnamas dated 10th January 1981 and 21st August 1986, were fabricated. The plaintiffs failed to produce any credible evidence to support their claim of joint ownership.2. Plaintiffs' Failure to Produce Evidence:The suit was filed on 26th April 2010. Despite multiple opportunities and court orders, the plaintiffs repeatedly failed to file the required affidavit of admission/denial of documents and chief affidavits for their evidence. The court granted several adjournments, but the plaintiffs did not comply with the deadlines. The defendant's counsel argued that due to the plaintiffs' failure to pay the costs and their repeated delays, their right to present evidence should be closed.3. Adjournments and Procedural Delays:The court noted the plaintiffs' consistent failure to adhere to procedural timelines. The plaintiffs were granted multiple adjournments to file their affidavits, but they failed to do so, even after being given a final opportunity on 21st May 2014, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000. The plaintiffs neither filed the affidavit nor paid the costs. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Shiv Cotex vs. Tirgun Auto Plast Private Limited and Ors., which emphasized that courts should not grant adjournments without justifiable cause and must ensure effective progress in suits.4. Application of Legal Precedents and Procedural Rules:The court applied the principles from the Shiv Cotex case, highlighting that litigants should not abuse procedural rules by seeking unnecessary adjournments. The judgment stressed that courts must control the litigation process and avoid delays that undermine the efficacy of the judicial system. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' conduct warranted the closure of their evidence, as they had failed to discharge the burden of proof on the issues framed.Conclusion:The court ordered the closure of the plaintiffs' evidence due to their repeated non-compliance and procedural delays. Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proof, leading to the dismissal of their suit. The pending application was also disposed of, and the judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the judicial process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
