A significant legal case revolving around property possession, involving the State of Uttaranchal and the Plaintiffs, has been reevaluated by the Supreme Court of India. The judgment addresses various irregularities in the legal proceedings and underscores the importance of fair trial practices. Let’s delve into the details of this crucial legal battle for justice.
Facts
- The suit was filed on 8 November, 2001 for possession of the property.
- Allegation: State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) was a tenant of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property at a monthly rent of Rs.86,232/-.
- Application made on 18 February, 2002 for striking out the defendant’s defense.
- Plaintiffs requested to lead their ex parte evidence through affidavits.
- Defendants made an application on 16 May, 2002 to set aside the order dated 22 April, 2002.
- District Judge holding a Camp Court at Mussoorie on 22 April, 2002.
Also Read: Supreme Court’s Judgement on Discharge Application of Dilip Bhai
Arguments
- The plaintiffs’ senior counsel criticized the behavior of the defendants
- The conduct of the defendants was described as unacceptable
- The defendants’ actions were severely disapproved by the plaintiffs’ counsel
- The revenue entries were illegally altered by the ARG_RESPONDENT to raise a contention about the lack of title on the part of the plaintiffs.
- The State Government also prosecuted the plaintiffs in this case.
Also Read: Illegal Search and Seizure Case: Quashing of Complaint and FIR by Supreme Court of India
Analysis
- The application for amending the plaint was allowed on 2 August, 2002, followed by the decree on 24 August, 2002.
- The order striking out the defendants’ defense was deemed illegal as the amended plaint was not served on the defendants.
- No notice was issued to defendants when their defense was struck out unilaterally on 3 May, 2002.
- The application to strike out the defense was taken up without notice, despite the next date already being fixed on 22 April, 2002 for 30th May, 2002.
- The defendants did not challenge the decree or order for three years, leading to further complications in the case.
- The defendants’s attempts to set aside the order striking out their defense were dismissed multiple times, without proper opportunity for defense.
- Even if the defense was struck out, defendants were entitled to a copy of the amended plaint for a fair chance to respond.
- The suit was decreed ex parte without adequate opportunity for the defendants to defend themselves.
- The court failed to give proper notice to defendants regarding crucial proceedings, violating principles of natural justice.
- The Trial Court needs to re-evaluate the case on its merits following the irregularities in the legal proceedings.
- The ex parte decree is revived under specific conditions.
- Findings in the judgement are limited to the legality of the ex parte order and striking out the defense of defendants.
- An illegality was associated with the conduct of the suit proceedings and passing of the ex parte decree.
- Orders dated 22 April, 2002, and 3 May, 2002 are set aside, and the suit is relegated to a previous stage.
- Compulsory acquisition of the property claimed by the appellants, initiated by the State Government, has been set aside.
- Appellants have no grievance regarding the setting aside of the acquisition.
Also Read: Land Acquisition Case: Supreme Court Ruling in Lakshmesh M. v. P. Rajalakshmi & C.N. Rangaraju
Decision
- The defendants’ liability to pay rent at Rs.86,232/- per month from 1 September, 1993 has been confirmed by the State Government.
- The defendants are granted two months to pay the balance amount at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per month from 14 July, 2014.
- The Trial Court is directed to invest the deposited amounts in a fixed deposit with a nationalized bank.
- If compliance is made, the restored suit will be listed before the District and Session Judge, Dehradun on 25 November, 2024 without further notice.
- The ex parte decree dated 24 August 2002 has been set aside, and the defendants must continue to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- per month.
- The Appeals are partly allowed, and the record of the suit is to be returned to the Trial Court.
- The pending execution application will not survive due to the judgment.
- The suit is restored with the condition of the defendants depositing Rs.1,00,000/- per month from 14 July, 2014 within two months.
- The Trial Court will decide on permitting the defendants to file a written statement.
- The amounts deposited in the Court will be transferred to the Trial Court after the present fixed deposit expires.
Case Title: RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS (2024 INSC 724)
Case Number: C.A. No.-002394-002394 – 2023
