In a recent legal development of Arun Popat Darekar & Others v/s Valuba Pandurang Urade & Others, the High Court has set aside a trial court’s decision that prevented Defendant No. 3 from presenting his evidence in a civil suit involving property disputes. The writ petition filed by Defendant No. 3 challenged an order by the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Niphad, which discarded his affidavit of evidence. The case underscores the importance of a party’s right to independently present evidence, even if another defendant has testified on their behalf.
Case Background:
The plaintiffs in this case sought the cancellation of two sale deeds executed on 24th December 2010, which transferred ownership of certain properties from Eknath More to the defendants. According to the plaintiffs, their predecessor, Pandurang, had bought the properties in question via a registered sale deed in 1989. Following his death in 2014, the plaintiffs discovered that the properties were registered in the names of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, based on the sale deeds executed in 2010. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking to cancel these deeds and assert their ownership over the properties.
Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, the purchasers of the properties, countered the plaintiffs’ claims by asserting that they had orally agreed to purchase the properties from Eknath More in 1988. They also provided evidence of partial consideration being paid and their subsequent construction work on the land.
Trial Proceedings and Legal Challenge:
The case proceeded to trial, where the plaintiffs completed their evidence. When it was the defendants' turn, Defendant No. 2 testified on behalf of himself and Defendant Nos. 1 and 3, acting as their power of attorney holder. His evidence, given in the form of an affidavit, was accepted by the court after cross-examination.
However, Defendant No. 3, who was also a party to the suit, sought to present his own evidence through an affidavit. The plaintiffs objected to this, claiming that Defendant No. 2 had already given evidence on behalf of Defendant No. 3, and thus there was no need for Defendant No. 3 to testify. The trial court, agreeing with the plaintiffs’ objection, discarded Defendant No. 3's affidavit of evidence in an order dated 1st April 2022.
Court's Consideration:
Defendant No. 3 challenged the trial court's decision in the High Court through a writ petition, asserting that the order was unjust and hindered his right to present crucial facts related to the case. The key issue at hand was whether a defendant, who is also a party to the suit, can be prevented from offering independent evidence simply because another defendant has already testified on their behalf.
The High Court considered the provisions of Order XVIII, Rule 3-A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which generally allows a party to give evidence after their witnesses have testified. However, the court noted that this rule did not directly apply to the circumstances of this case. Defendant No. 3, although not initially indicating his intention to testify, had a right to present evidence regarding aspects of the transaction that were within his personal knowledge. These aspects were not fully addressed in the testimony of Defendant No. 2.
The High Court further observed that Defendant No. 2’s testimony, while helpful, did not cover all facts of the case, particularly the details of the 1988 oral transaction, which only Defendant No. 3 could provide. The court referred to the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr. vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 217, which clarified that a power of attorney holder could only testify to facts within their personal knowledge, not those exclusive to the principal. In this case, Defendant No. 3’s direct knowledge of the transaction was vital, and his testimony was indispensable for a fair trial.
The Court's Ruling:
The High Court ruled in favor of Defendant No. 3, setting aside the trial court’s order. The court emphasized that the failure to allow Defendant No. 3 to present his evidence would unjustly prejudice him, as it could affect his ability to fully defend his position. Moreover, the plaintiffs would have the opportunity to cross-examine Defendant No. 3 on all aspects of his testimony, ensuring a fair and balanced process.
In its ruling, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 to be paid by Defendant No. 3 to the plaintiffs as a condition for re-presenting his evidence. The amount was to be deposited with the trial court within two weeks to be disbursed to the plaintiffs. The trial court was directed to proceed with the examination of Defendant No. 3’s evidence and expedite the conclusion of the suit.
Conclusion:
The judgment highlights an essential aspect of procedural justice—the right of a party to independently present evidence that is relevant to their case. It reinforces that one defendant’s testimony, even if given as a power of attorney for another, may not be sufficient to cover all aspects of the case, especially when unique knowledge is held by the other party. This decision ensures that all defendants have a fair opportunity to present their case and clarifies the importance of allowing each party the right to lead evidence that may support their claims or defenses.
