The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that the right to present evidence is a fundamental aspect of natural justice in civil litigation. In a decisive ruling, the Court set aside an order closing the defendant’s evidence without affording a reasonable opportunity, emphasizing that procedural fairness cannot be sacrificed for expediency.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondent, Sukhdial Singh Bhullar, filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 40,00,000 against the petitioner, M/s G-Next Media (PTC News), and others, alleging damages arising from a commercial dispute. The suit was instituted on 26.07.2021. The petitioner appeared through counsel and filed a written statement. Five issues were framed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS Nagar (Mohali), on 22.09.2022.
Key Facts
- The plaintiff-respondent led his evidence and closed the same on 16.05.2025.
- The petitioner sought multiple adjournments to lead its evidence but was unable to complete it.
- The petitioner’s counsel made repeated requests for time to examine witnesses and produce documents.
- No specific timeline or schedule was fixed by the trial court for completion of the petitioner’s evidence.
- The petitioner was not given a clear notice or warning that failure to conclude evidence by a certain date would result in closure.
Procedural History
- 26.07.2021: Civil Suit No. CS/574/2021 filed by respondent-plaintiff.
- 22.09.2022: Five issues framed by the trial court.
- 16.05.2025: Plaintiff closes evidence after approximately 2½ years of proceedings.
- 19.02.2026: Trial court, without granting a final opportunity, closed the petitioner’s evidence by order (Annexure P-5), citing repeated adjournments and lack of justification.
- 16.03.2026: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the trial court’s closure of its evidence was arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice. It contended that the plaintiff had taken over two and a half years to complete evidence, while the petitioner was never given a fair, structured, or final opportunity to do the same. The petitioner emphasized that its rights to defend the suit and present a full case were at stake.
For the Respondent: The respondent did not file a written reply. The trial court’s order, however, relied on the petitioner’s history of seeking adjournments and lack of concrete justification for further delay.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought setting aside of the impugned order dated 19.02.2026 and a direction to the trial court to grant one effective opportunity to conclude its evidence.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a trial court may close a defendant’s evidence without affording a reasonable and final opportunity to lead proof, particularly when the plaintiff has taken an extended period to complete its case.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the doctrine of natural justice, particularly the principle of audi alteram partem, arguing that the right to present evidence is not a privilege but a procedural right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It cited State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to underscore that procedural fairness is integral to substantive justice. The petitioner emphasized that the trial court had not issued any final notice or warning before closing evidence, nor had it considered the complexity of the case or the number of witnesses involved.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not appear or file any written submissions. The trial court’s order, however, inferred that the petitioner had abused the process by seeking multiple adjournments and failed to demonstrate any compelling reason for further delay.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that while adjournments must not be granted indiscriminately, the closure of evidence without a final opportunity to present a defense strikes at the very foundation of fair trial. The trial court’s reliance on the petitioner’s past adjournments was insufficient to justify the abrupt closure of evidence, especially when no clear deadline had been communicated.
"The right to lead evidence is not a mere formality; it is a substantive right that must be protected unless there is deliberate and inexcusable delay coupled with a clear warning and opportunity to cure."
The Court noted that the plaintiff had taken over two and a half years to complete evidence, yet the petitioner was denied even a single final opportunity to respond. This imbalance, the Court held, rendered the proceedings fundamentally unfair. The Court further clarified that the power under Article 227 is not merely supervisory but corrective, and must be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice.
The Court rejected the notion that repeated adjournments alone justify closure without a final chance. It emphasized that the trial court’s duty is to ensure both parties are heard fully, not to penalize litigants for procedural delays without due process.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 19.02.2026 was set aside. The petitioner was granted one effective opportunity to conclude its evidence before the trial court. The petitioner is directed to deposit costs of Rs. 5,000 with the District Legal Services Authority, SAS Nagar (Mohali), and produce the receipt before the trial court. The trial court shall fix a date for the petitioner to complete evidence within a reasonable time, and no further adjournments shall be granted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Fair Opportunity Must Be Explicitly Granted
- Practitioners must insist that trial courts issue clear, written notices before closing evidence, specifying the final date and consequences of non-compliance.
- Courts cannot rely on past adjournments alone to deny the right to lead evidence; there must be a demonstrable pattern of mala fide delay.
Procedural Fairness Trumps Expediency
- The principle of audi alteram partem is non-negotiable in civil trials, even in cases with prolonged delays.
- A defendant’s right to present evidence cannot be extinguished without a final, meaningful opportunity - regardless of how many adjournments were previously granted.
Costs as a Deterrent, Not a Penalty
- The imposition of Rs. 5,000 as costs is a procedural safeguard, not a punishment. It signals that while the court will protect rights, it will not tolerate dilatory tactics.
- Practitioners should advise clients to deposit costs promptly to avoid procedural setbacks.
Judicial Oversight Under Article 227 Is Remedial
- High Courts must intervene under Article 227 when trial courts act arbitrarily, even if no statutory provision is violated.
- This judgment reinforces that procedural irregularities violating natural justice are grounds for revision, irrespective of the stage of proceedings.
