IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1328 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.5313 of 2004)

Mahanagarpalika        ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Sureshbhai Bhanubhai Thakkar & Anr.       ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The  predecessor  of  the  plaintiffs-respondents  filed  Special  Civil  Suit

No.204 of 1990 for recovery of Rs.2,03,300/- with interest @ 18% from the date of

notice  i.e.  20th August,  1988.   He  also  prayed  for  grant  of  a  declaration  that  the

defendant-Mahanagarpalika,  Bhavnagar  (appellant  herein)  is  bound  to  allot  shop

No.40-I to him at the upset price.  After 13 years of the institution of suit, the evidence

of the plaintiffs-respondents was closed on 6.1.2003 and the case was adjourned to

21.2.2003 for the evidence of the defendant-appellant.  As no witness was produced on

that day, the trial Court closed the evidence of the defendant-appellant.  The suit was

decreed on 31.3.2003. When the matter was taken to the High Court in first appeal,

the same was dismissed summarily.  

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.  In our view, in the facts

and circumstances of the case, the trial Court was not justified in closing the evidence

of the defendant and passing a decree in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents  only  on

the  ground  that  the High  Court had

...2/-

- 2 -  

required it to expedite disposal of the suit.  The trial Court should have, after taking

note of the fact that the plaintiffs had taken long time to adduce their evidence, given

further opportunity to the defendant-appellant to adduce evidence and then decided

the matter.  Its failure to do so has resulted in miscarriage of justice.  

While dismissing the first appeal, the High Court observed that in-spite of

sufficient opportunity having been given, the appellant did not adduce evidence in

support  of  its  case.   This  must  be  treated  as  clearly  erroneous  because  it  is  an

undisputed fact that only one opportunity was given to defendant-appellant to adduce

evidence.   

For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed, the impugned orders

are set aside and the trial Court is directed to decide the suit afresh in accordance

with law after giving opportunity to defendant-appellant to adduce evidence.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, February 27, 2009.