LexJAMI VENKATA SURYAPRABHA & ANR. versus TARINI PRASAD NAYAK & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 646 : 2024 INSC 1001 Jami Venkata Suryaprabha & Anr. v. Tarini Prasad Nayak & Ors. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29045 of 2024) 09 December 2024 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the right of plaintiff to ask the defendant to lead the evidence. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. XVIII r.1 – Hearing of suit and examination of witnesses – Right to begin – Defendants be asked to lead the oral evidence – When: Held: Ord. XVIII speaks of the ‘hearing’ of a suit which is only a part of the trial of the suit – Determination of the question as to which party has a right to begin is an integral part of the hearing itself – Ord. XVIII r. 1 indeed provides for plaintiff's right to begin the evidence but not the court's obligation to ask the plaintiffs to begin first – No impediment for the court to call upon either party to lead evidence first, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the issues framed – Neither party can insist that the other one should be asked to lead it first – Where the court finds that defendant's plea strikes at the root of the case, no hitch in asking him/her to prove such plea first which can lead to disposal of the case – All rules of procedure are designed and directed to achieve and secure ends of justice – On facts, the trial court rejected the application filed by the petitioners u/Ord. XVIII r. 1 that as defendants are not disputing the agreement of sale, the defendant be asked to begin to lead oral evidence, and the High Court also declined to interfere – High Court rightly held that although the defence has admitted the existence of a document- “agreement of sale”, yet they have specifically said that the same is a sham transaction – Averments made in the written statement sought to be relied upon by the plaintiff does not ipso facto be construed to be admission of materials facts in the alleged plaint – Thus, no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. [Paras 5, 7, 17-19] [2024] 12 S.C.R. 647 Jami Venkata Suryaprabha and Anr. v. Tarini Prasad Nayak and Ors. List of Acts Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. List of Keywords Right of plaintiff to ask defendant to lead the evidence; Hearing of suit and examination of witnesses; Right to begin; Hearing of a suit; Trial of the suit. Case Arising From EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29045 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 23.09.2024 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in CMP Nos. 1019 of 2024 Appearances for Parties Mrs. Prabhati Nayak, Umakant Misra, Debabrata Dash, Ms. Apoorva Sharma, Ms. Shivangi Gupta, Niranjan Sahu, Advs. for the Petitioners. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. This petition arises from the order passed by the High Court of Orissa in CMP No.1019 of 2024 (original jurisdiction case) dated 23rd September, 2024 by which the petition filed by the petitioners herein seeking to challenge the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Paralakhemundi came to be rejected thereby affirming the order passed by the Civil Judge rejecting the application filed by the petitioners herein in the capacity of being a plaintiff under Order XVIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 2. The petitioners herein are the original plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the original defendants. 3. The petitioners have instituted a suit for specific performance of contract based on an agreement of sale dated 1st September, 2019, said to have been executed by the respondents(defendants) in their favour. 4. The respondents herein filed their written statement stating in para 6 thereof as under:- 648 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports “6) That the averments in Para 6 of the Plaint that defendants though received the said letter dated 25/11/2019 sent by ordinary post, and knowing well in advance the contents of the Redg. Letter and the letter sent by courier they refused to receive are all dales and concocted stories of the plaintiff only to make a cause of action for the present proceedings. However when Plaintiffs and others tried to spread that the sale of the suit property has been finalized and Plaintiffs going to purchase it came to Knowledge of Defendants, they preferred to inform in writing about the cancelation of the said sham sale agreement dated 01/09/2019 about wh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.