The Punjab & Haryana High Court has affirmed that courts possess inherent discretion to grant fresh opportunities to complete evidence in civil suits, particularly when delay is attributable to circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control and the suit involves recovery of dues. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural rigidity must yield to substantive justice in civil litigation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, M/s Dev Raj Institution of Management & Technology, filed a civil suit for recovery of dues against the respondents. During the trial, the petitioner’s evidence was closed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur, on 18 January 2018, following the non-appearance of key witnesses despite summons. A subsequent application to recall this order, filed on 7 February 2018, was dismissed on 24 September 2018.
Procedural History
- 18 January 2018: Trial court closed the petitioner’s evidence after two witnesses failed to appear.
- 7 February 2018: Petitioner filed application to recall the order closing evidence.
- 24 September 2018: Trial court dismissed the recall application.
- 30 November 2018: A coordinate Bench of this Court issued an interim order directing the trial court to adjourn proceedings pending further hearing.
- 30 January 2026: Civil revision petition heard and decided by Justice Vikas Bahl.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought setting aside of the orders closing evidence and two effective opportunities to complete its entire evidence, accompanied by a deposit of ₹20,000 as compensatory cost to the respondents.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a civil court, under its inherent powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, may grant fresh opportunities to complete evidence in a recovery suit after evidence has been closed, where delay was caused by unavoidable circumstances and the petitioner offers to pay compensatory costs.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the closure of evidence was premature and unjust, as one witness had completed examination-in-chief but could not be cross-examined due to a declared holiday, and other witnesses had repeatedly failed to appear despite summons. Counsel relied on the principle of natural justice and the court’s inherent power to ensure fair trial, citing the coordinate Bench’s earlier observation that the petitioner was willing to secure witness attendance through coercive processes and pay costs. The petitioner emphasized that the suit was for recovery, and prolonged delay prejudiced its substantive right.
For the Respondent
The respondents were not served and did not appear. However, the court noted that the trial proceedings had been stayed since 2018 due to the coordinate Bench’s order, implying the respondents were aware of the litigation’s status. No counter-submissions were filed, and the court proceeded on the basis of the petitioner’s unchallenged averments.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the suit - being one for recovery - and the fact that the petitioner had not wilfully delayed proceedings. It distinguished between deliberate dilatory tactics and genuine impediments such as holidays and non-appearance of witnesses despite due process. The Court emphasized that Article 227 empowers High Courts to supervise subordinate courts not merely to correct errors of law, but to prevent miscarriage of justice.
"The delay in the proceedings is primarily prejudicing the petitioner as it is the petitioner’s suit for recovery, thus, in the said circumstances, the petitioner should be granted two effective opportunities to conclude its entire evidence."
The Court held that the trial court’s mechanical closure of evidence, without considering the petitioner’s willingness to secure witnesses through bailable warrants and to pay costs, amounted to an abuse of discretion. The deposit of ₹20,000 was not merely a condition but a recognition of the inconvenience caused to the respondents, thereby balancing procedural fairness with substantive rights.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court set aside both the order closing evidence and the dismissal of the recall application. It granted the petitioner two effective opportunities to complete its evidence, subject to deposit of ₹20,000 with the trial court within seven days, to be released to the respondents. The respondents were permitted to file a recall application if aggrieved.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Fresh Opportunities Are Permissible in Recovery Suits
- Practitioners may now argue that courts must exercise discretion to allow completion of evidence in recovery suits where delay is not attributable to laches or mala fide.
- A willingness to pay compensatory costs and use coercive processes for witness attendance strengthens such applications.
Cost Deposit as a Balancing Mechanism
- Courts may require a deposit as a condition for reopening evidence, not as punishment but as a deterrent against frivolous delays.
- The amount should be proportionate to the inconvenience caused and must be clearly earmarked for the opposing party.
Procedural Rigidity Must Yield to Substantive Justice
- The judgment reinforces that closure of evidence is not final if it leads to injustice.
- Trial courts must record reasons before closing evidence, especially when witnesses’ non-appearance is due to external factors like holidays or prior non-cooperation.
- This precedent applies equally to other civil suits where the plaintiff’s right to prove its case is materially impaired.
