Summary
The Court upheld remand of a damages suit to permit the defendants to file a written statement, conditional on Rs 11,250 costs. On these facts, procedural flexibility and an opportunity to contest achieved justice while compensating the plaintiff. Fresh notice and time for compliance were directed, with revival of the earlier decree upon default and completion of trial within six months after appearance.
Issues
- Whether further opportunity to file a written statement, with costs, justified remand.
- What consequences and timetable should apply on remand.
Held
- Procedure facilitates justice and should reasonably accommodate a fair hearing, subject to clearly defined exceptions. In these circumstances the trial court should have granted further time with compensatory costs instead of closing the defence. (¶ 13–18)
- The High Court appropriately balanced the opportunity to contest with Rs 11,250 costs payable to the plaintiff as a precondition to filing the defence. Its remand therefore warranted no interference. (¶¶ 15, 18–19)
- The trial court was to notify the absent defendants afresh and grant time to deposit costs and file their written statement. Failure to comply would revive the earlier decree; compliance would lead to issues, evidence, cross-examination of earlier witnesses and permitted additional evidence. (¶ 20–23)
- The plaintiff was to appear on 3 October 2017 and the trial was to conclude within six months of the parties’ appearance. (¶ 24–25)
Result
Plaintiff’s appeal dismissed; conditional remand upheld, with fresh-notice, default-revival and expedited-trial directions.