SHARDABEN SOMNATHBHAI PATEL Vs. VIRENDRABHAI R. VAGHELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioners - original defendants No.2 and 3 challenging the impugned common order dtd. 20/10/2021 passed below applications Exh.100 and 101 by the Small Causes Court No.5, Ahmedabad in H.R.P. Suit No.1998 of 2006, whereby the tenant has given the applications; one for his further oral evidence and another for production of documents, which are allowed.

(2.) Heard learned advocates for the parties.

(3.) Mr. Parikh, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the earlier order passed in the suit as well as the appeal before the appellate Bench as well as the proceedings in the Civil Revision Application, it cannot be construed that de novo trial is directed, but as per his submission, it can be only said that proper opportunity is to be given to the respective parties and the matter should be proceeded further from where it has stopped. He has further pointed out that the applications which are filed at Exh.100 and 101 are vague. He has also drawn my attention towards discussion of the trial Court while deciding such applications and more particularly towards the findings and submitted that the trial Court has not given proper and convincing reasons while deciding such applications and therefore also, this Court may exercise the powers by interfering with the impugned order. He has drawn my attention towards Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was referred in the said order impugned. Lastly, he has relied on the decision reported in 2023 (3) SCALE 348 in the case of Sirajudheen versus Zeenath and others and submitted that the trial cannot be considered as de novo but should be order of remand and therefore the trial Court has committed error, more particularly when the suit is ripe for evidence and at this stage, such application for right to permit the cross examination of the witness as well as adducing additional evidence filed by the present respondent with a view to delay the proceedings cannot be entertained and particularly, when the Court has directed to dispose of the proceedings in stipulated period.