01Facts
In Special Civil Suit No. 605 of 2015, the trial court ordered defendant No. 2 to disclose his movable and immovable properties by an order dated 21 February 2022 below Exhibits 33, 35 and 37.
pp. 2–3On the ground that he had not complied, the trial court passed an order dated 12 July 2022 below Exhibit 49 discarding his evidence.
pp. 2–3Defendant No. 2 challenged that order under Article 227, seeking time to provide the disclosure and restoration of his evidence.
pp. 2–3He stated that he was ready to comply and pay reasonable costs; the plaintiff accepted that a time-bound direction with costs would be appropriate.
pp. 2–302Issues
i.1. Whether the trial court’s order discarding defendant No. 2’s evidence should be set aside where he offered to comply with the earlier disclosure order within a reasonable, time-bound period.
pp. 2–3ii.2. Whether setting aside that order should be conditional on payment of costs and disclosure of the specified properties.
p. 303Law Applied
The petition invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
p. 2The judgment cited no statute beyond Article 227 and no precedents.
p. 3It resolved the matter by directing compliance with the trial court’s disclosure order, payment of costs, and consequential setting aside of the order that had discarded the petitioner’s evidence.
p. 304Reasoning
The High Court noted that the petitioner’s evidence had been discarded for non-compliance with the trial court’s disclosure order and that the petitioner was now willing to comply.
pp. 3–4The plaintiff did not oppose a time-bound opportunity subject to reasonable costs.
pp. 3–4In those circumstances, the Court granted relief conditionally: the petitioner had to pay ₹10,000 in costs and disclose the specified properties within 15 days of receiving the order; upon compliance, the impugned order would be quashed and set aside.
pp. 3–405Holding
The petition was partly allowed and the Rule made absolute to the stated extent.
pp. 3–4The petitioner was directed to pay ₹10,000 to respondent No. 1 and disclose his movable and immovable properties, including ancestral properties and properties held in the name of his business, within 15 days of receiving the order.
pp. 3–4Upon compliance, the trial court’s order dated 12 July 2022 below Exhibit 49 would stand quashed and set aside.
pp. 3–4The trial court was requested to expedite the suit, preferably deciding it on or before 31 March 2028, subject to the parties’ cooperation.
pp. 3–4Original Court PDF
ASHRAF YUNUS AGHADIvsVIPUL MANSUKHLAL BHADANI
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
