Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court set aside the Trial Court’s order that rejected a plaintiff’s application seeking to direct the defendants to conclude final arguments before him. Emphasizing that sub-clauses (2) and (3) of Rule 2 of Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure are discretionary and not mandatory, the High Court ruled that the Trial Court had failed to properly apply its mind to the applicable legal position. The matter was remanded for reconsideration by the Trial Court in light of the governing legal principles.
Facts
The petitioner, who was the original plaintiff in a civil suit for declaration, perpetual injunction, and boundary fixation, filed Regular Civil Suit No.108/2013 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shrirampur. The defendants contested the suit. After framing of issues, the plaintiff led his evidence first and filed a ‘close evidence’ pursis. The defendants subsequently recorded their evidence and also filed a ‘close evidence’ pursis.
At the stage of final arguments, the plaintiff filed an application (Exhibit-197) seeking a direction that the defendants be asked to conclude arguments first, allowing him to respond thereafter, in accordance with Rule 2(2) and (3) of Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Trial Court rejected the application, stating that the law does not mandate the defendants to argue first and characterized the plaintiff’s application as an attempt to delay the proceedings.
Issues
- Whether sub-clauses (2) and (3) of Rule 2 of Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure are mandatory or discretionary.
- Whether a party can insist on the other party arguing first based on the sequence of evidence led.
- Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the plaintiff’s application without a proper application of law.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that as per Rule 2 of Order XVIII, the party who begins the evidence (in this case, the plaintiff) has the right to reply generally on the whole case after the other party concludes arguments. It was argued that since the defendants recorded their evidence last, they were required to begin the arguments, thereby allowing the plaintiff to respond thereafter. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Bombay High Court’s decisions in Gajanan Dhondu Dalvi v. Trishul Construction Company and Sharanappa Alias Sharanabasappa Tipama v. Veerappa R. Maranbassari. The petitioner maintained that his application was entirely in tune with the law and not an attempt to delay the proceedings.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents opposed the petition, asserting that Rule 2(2) and (3) of Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure were merely enabling provisions and not mandatory. They argued that no party can demand that the other party be compelled to argue first based on the sequence of evidence. Instead, the matter is within the discretion of the court. The respondents relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Jami Venkata Suryaprabha v. Tarini Prasad Nayak and Shivaji Laxman Palaskar v. Kamal Raosaheb Shipalkar to contend that procedural law must serve the ends of justice and cannot be rigidly applied.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Rule 2 of Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, which outlines the sequence of presentation at the hearing of a suit. Clause (1) provides that the party with the right to begin (usually the plaintiff) shall state their case and produce evidence. Clause (2) allows the other party to then state their case, lead evidence, and address the Court. Clause (3) allows the party beginning to reply generally on the whole case.
While the provisions seem to provide a procedural structure, the Court noted that they do not create an enforceable right to compel the opposite party to argue first. These clauses are permissive, not mandatory, and are meant for the convenience of proceedings, rather than conferring any legal entitlement.
Precedent Analysis
The Bombay High Court relied on several precedents, including:
- Gajanan Dhondu Dalvi v. Trishul Construction Company (1995): The Single Judge ruled that the party who gave evidence first has the right to address the Court last, and the party leading evidence last should argue first. This principle aligns with the logical flow of presenting a rebuttal.
- Jami Venkata Suryaprabha v. Tarini Prasad Nayak (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3862): The Supreme Court clarified that Order XVIII Rule 1 allows discretion to the Court and does not create an obligation to follow a rigid sequence. The Court may, based on facts and issues, decide who should lead evidence or arguments first, to serve the ends of justice.
- Shivaji Laxman Palaskar v. Kamal Raosaheb Shipalkar (2019): This judgment reiterated that procedural rules must be interpreted flexibly to ensure substantive justice.
These decisions underscore that while there is a general norm in sequencing, the Court retains ultimate discretion.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that the Trial Court had failed to consider the provisions and judgments in the proper legal context. Although the plaintiff had relied on sub-clauses (2) and (3) of Rule 2 of Order XVIII, the Trial Court summarily dismissed the application without exercising discretion or evaluating whether procedural convenience warranted allowing the plaintiff to conclude arguments.
The High Court held that while the plaintiff could not insist upon a strict right to have the defendants argue first, the Trial Court was expected to exercise discretion in view of the applicable legal principles.
The High Court observed:
“Plain reading of sub-clauses (2) and (3) of Rule 2 of Order XVIII shows that provisions are for convenience and does not put any obligation upon any party so far as chronology of addressing Court on continuation of evidence.”
And further:
“None of the party can insist upon other party to address argument first… However, in facts of each case Court would have discretion to pass orders in tune of law discussed in foregoing paragraphs.”
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the writ petition in part and set aside the Trial Court’s order. The matter was remanded to the Trial Court with directions to reconsider the plaintiff’s application (Exhibit-197) in light of the applicable legal framework and exercise discretion judiciously. The High Court clarified that no rigid right exists for the party leading evidence last to necessarily argue first, but that courts must evaluate such requests contextually.
Implications
This judgment provides critical guidance on procedural sequencing in civil trials, especially regarding the stage of final arguments. While procedural rules like Order XVIII Rule 2 lay out a general structure, they do not grant enforceable rights but instead serve to facilitate orderly proceedings. The judgment reaffirms the importance of judicial discretion and contextual decision-making.
Trial Courts must avoid mechanically applying rules and instead examine the facts and procedural fairness before ruling on such requests. This precedent encourages thoughtful procedural justice while rejecting misuse of procedural norms either to delay or demand a fixed sequence of arguments.
Referenced Judgments and Their Application
- Gajanan Dhondu Dalvi v. Trishul Construction Company (1995 (1) Mh.L.J. 695): Held that the party leading evidence last should begin arguments first; relied upon to support petitioner’s view.
- Sharanappa Alias Sharanabasappa Tipama v. Veerappa R. Maranbassari (1968 Mh.L.J. 629): Cited to emphasize sequencing under procedural law.
- Jami Venkata Suryaprabha v. Tarini Prasad Nayak (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3862): Supreme Court judgment cited by respondent to argue that no party can insist on the other arguing first and that discretion lies with the Court.
- Shivaji Laxman Palaskar v. Kamal Raosaheb Shipalkar (2019 (1) ABR 159): Reinforced the Supreme Court’s view on flexible procedural interpretation.
FAQs
1. Can a plaintiff compel the defendant to begin final arguments if the defendant led evidence last?
No, a plaintiff cannot insist as a matter of right. Rule 2 of Order XVIII is discretionary and courts must decide based on context and fairness, not rigid rules.
2. What did the High Court say about the Trial Court’s rejection of the application?
The High Court found that the Trial Court had not properly applied its mind to the legal provisions and precedents and thus set aside the order for fresh consideration.
3. Are sub-clauses (2) and (3) of Rule 2 Order XVIII mandatory?
No. They are enabling provisions meant for procedural convenience and do not impose any mandatory obligation to follow a strict sequence in arguments.
