Supreme Court Orders Fresh Trial Due to Lack of Opportunity to File Written Statement in Civil Suit: Rajinder Tiwari vs. Kedar Nath (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 28 March 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 260

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can a civil suit be justly decided if one party is not allowed to present their defense? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case where a defendant was barred from filing a written statement. This judgment emphasizes the importance of a fair trial and the fundamental right of all parties to present their case fully. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case originated from a civil suit filed by the appellant, Rajinder Tiwari, against the respondent, Kedar Nath, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The suit sought a permanent injunction related to a property. The defendant, Kedar Nath, was unable to file a written statement as his right to do so was closed by the Senior Civil Judge. Consequently, the defendant could not present documentary evidence. The plaintiff, Rajinder Tiwari, proceeded to present his evidence, while the defendant could only cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Senior Civil Judge decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff on 01.02.2010. The defendant’s first appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 26.07.2010. The High Court of Delhi, in the second appeal, reversed the lower courts’ decisions on 03.11.2016 and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. The plaintiff’s application for rehearing was also dismissed on 26.04.2017, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair hearing. While no specific statute or section is quoted, the court emphasizes the fundamental principle that all parties in a suit must be given a fair opportunity to present their case. The court noted that the defendant was denied the opportunity to file a written statement, which is a crucial part of the legal process, thus hindering his ability to present his defence.

Arguments

The primary argument of the appellant (plaintiff) was that the lower courts had rightly decided the case in his favor based on the evidence presented. The respondent (defendant), on the other hand, contended that he was not given a fair chance to present his defense because his right to file a written statement was closed by the trial court. He argued that this denial prejudiced his case and resulted in a flawed judgment.

The Supreme Court noted that the defendant was unable to present his case fully due to the closure of his right to file a written statement. This prevented him from adducing proper evidence and documentary evidence. The Court observed that the decisions of the lower courts were based on insufficient evidence due to this procedural lapse, leading to prejudice for both parties.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the defendant’s second appeal and dismissing the plaintiff’s suit.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or legal provisions in this judgment. The decision was based on the fundamental principle of natural justice and the need for a fair trial, emphasizing that all parties must be given an adequate opportunity to present their case.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s order, and remanded the case back to the Trial Court. The Court emphasized that all parties must have a fair opportunity to contest the suit on merits. The Court noted that the defendant was denied the opportunity to file a written statement, which is a crucial part of the legal process, thus hindering his ability to present his defence. The Court directed the Trial Court to allow the defendant to file a written statement and adduce evidence.

The Court stated, “It is a settled law that all the contesting parties to the suit must get fair opportunity to contest the suit on merits in accordance with law.”

The Court also observed, “A decision rendered by the Courts in an unsatisfactory conducting of the trial of the suit is not legally sustainable.”

The Court further noted, “The respondents herein (legal representatives of original defendant) are accordingly granted liberty to file their written statement within one month from the date of their appearance in the suit.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring a fair trial. The denial of the defendant’s right to file a written statement was a major factor. The Court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the right of all parties to present their case fully. The Court was of the view that the lower courts had not conducted the trial in a satisfactory manner, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The judgment reinforces the principle that all parties in a civil suit must be given a fair opportunity to present their case, including the right to file a written statement.
• ✓ Courts must ensure that procedural fairness is maintained throughout the trial process.
• ✓ Denial of the right to file a written statement can lead to the setting aside of judgments and a fresh trial.
• ✓ This judgment highlights the importance of a fair trial and the need for courts to ensure that all parties have an adequate opportunity to be heard.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• ✓ The respondents (legal representatives of the original defendant) are granted liberty to file their written statement within one month from the date of their appearance in the suit.
• ✓ The Trial Court will frame issues based on the pleadings of the parties.
• ✓ The parties will be allowed to adduce evidence, including additional documents.
• ✓ The Trial Court will decide the suit on the basis of the pleadings and evidence, uninfluenced by any previous judgments in the case.
• ✓ The trial must be completed within one year.
• ✓ The parties are to appear before the Senior Civil Judge (North East District), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on 02.04.2019.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a fair trial is a fundamental right, and all parties must have an adequate opportunity to present their case. The denial of the right to file a written statement is a violation of this principle and can lead to the setting aside of judgments. This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness in the legal process and does not change any previous position of law but reiterates the existing position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Rajinder Tiwari vs. Kedar Nath emphasizes the critical importance of a fair trial in civil suits. By remanding the case back to the Trial Court, the Supreme Court ensured that the defendant would have the opportunity to present his defense fully. This judgment serves as a reminder that procedural fairness is essential for the administration of justice and that all parties must be given an adequate opportunity to be heard.