Whether application for reopening case is permissible when case is closed for judgment?

Having heard learned Counsel for the rival parties, I find
that the suit was instituted in the year 1997 and when the case
became ready for evidence and the respondent was examined on
26.10.2007, the petitioners remained continuously absent, though
some dates were given by the Court. After having given sufficient
opportunity to the petitioners and since they remained absent, the
Court had no alternative but to accept written note of argument, filed
by the respondent and to close the case for judgment.
Without
commenting on the reasons furnished for the absence, I find that the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Singh (Supra)
squarely covers this issue, and I do not think that the trial Court has
made any mistake in applying the said judgment. The suit having
been filed in 1997, it cannot be allowed to remain pending for many
years. It is a fact that allowing the application in question would
result into reopening of this suit, which is closed for judgment and it is

not permissible, as held in the judgment of the Supreme Court, cited
above. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
PETITIONERS:-
WRIT PETITION NO.2744/2008

 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Vs  Mr. G.G. Parihar

Date of pronouncing the judgment :-21.08.2008

A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.

CORAM:-
Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the
By the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged

2.
parties.
the order dated 30th April, 2008, below Exh.73, in Special Civil Suit
No.320/1997, made by the 3rd Jt. Civil Judge (S.D.), Nagpur.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of the writ
3.
petition argued that application (Exh.73) made by the petitioners
ought to have been allowed by the trial Court since the reasons
furnished in the application were genuine and due to fault of the clerk
of the Advocate for the petitioners, who did not note the future dates
in his diary and as a result the case went unattended. The only reason
given by the learned trial Court is that the case was closed for
judgment, and therefore, it was not possible to reopen the same,
particularly in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the

case of Arjun Singh...Versus...Mohindra Kumar and others, reported
in AIR 1964 Supreme Court 993.
4.
Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent opposed the
writ petition and argued that even assuming but not admitting the
reasons furnished in the application were genuine, the said judgment
of the Supreme Court clearly comes in the way of the petitioners, and

therefore, the trial Court has rightly found that it was not possible to
whatsoever.
5.
reopen the case, once it was closed for judgment for any reason
Having heard learned Counsel for the rival parties, I find
that the suit was instituted in the year 1997 and when the case
became ready for evidence and the respondent was examined on
26.10.2007, the petitioners remained continuously absent, though
some dates were given by the Court. After having given sufficient
opportunity to the petitioners and since they remained absent, the
Court had no alternative but to accept written note of argument, filed
by the respondent and to close the case for judgment.
Without
commenting on the reasons furnished for the absence, I find that the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Singh (Supra)
squarely covers this issue, and I do not think that the trial Court has
made any mistake in applying the said judgment. The suit having
been filed in 1997, it cannot be allowed to remain pending for many
years. It is a fact that allowing the application in question would
result into reopening of this suit, which is closed for judgment and it is

not permissible, as held in the judgment of the Supreme Court, cited
above. It is, therefore, impossible to interfere in the matter. Hence, I
make the following order.
6.
Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees
7.
Two Thousand Only) payable to the respondent by the petitioners.
Rule is discharged.
JUDGE
At the request of Advocate Shri M.M. Agnihotri for the
petitioners, judgment is stayed for a period of four weeks only.

Print Page