Can Additional Evidence Be Admitted at Revision Stage Under Order XVIII Rule 17-A / Section 151 CPC? Upholding the Supreme Court’s Principle on “Justice Over Procedure” as Binding Authority

The Punjab and Haryana High Court reaffirms that, even after the closure of evidence and arguments, courts may permit admission of additional evidence in exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC, provided the evidence is bona fide, relevant, and non-production earlier is justified by valid reasons. The judgment follows and applies the Supreme Court’s precedents, reinforcing a justice-oriented approach over procedural technicalities within civil litigation. The ruling thus carries binding value for subordinate courts within the jurisdiction.

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Reiterates that courts may permit additional evidence in exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC even after close of evidence and arguments, provided the evidence is bona fide, relevant, and earlier non-production is justified.
• Parity is emphasized: If one party has already been granted opportunity to lead additional evidence, the same must be afforded to the adversary for material of decisive value.
• Clarifies that exclusion of vital, subsequently emerging evidence (here, post-recording investigation report/statement) on sole grounds of procedural delay is unsustainable if justice requires its admission.
• The order provides a practical roadmap for lawyers seeking to admit crucial additional evidence discovered after the close of evidence (especially where it arises from post-trial developments, e.g., FIR investigations).
• The court underscores that procedure is intended to advance justice, not thwart it by elevating technicalities over substantive rights.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

• The High Court assessed whether the petitioner’s application to lead additional evidence (consisting of subsequent FIR statements and documents) deserved to be allowed after closure of evidence and when the trial was fixed for arguments.
• It highlighted the Supreme Court’s principle (K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, Ram Rati v. Mange Ram) that additional evidence may be permitted if needed for a just adjudication, even after evidence and arguments have closed.
• The court observed the petitioner’s inability to produce the evidence earlier was justified as it arose from developments occurring after closure of evidence (subsequent FIR and investigation).
• It was further highlighted that the trial court had permitted the opposite party to adduce additional evidence, so measure required parity and fairness.
• The order under challenge was found materially irregular as it prioritized technical/delayed filing objections over crucial justice-oriented considerations.
• The High Court ruled that denial solely on technical grounds, absent mala fides or unfair prejudice, would elevate procedure above justice.
• The impugned order was thus set aside with costs and directions to trial court to provide both parties fair opportunity regarding additional evidence.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

• The additional evidence sought to be adduced (post-evidence FIR investigation report and office statement) was crucial, arose after close of their evidence, and directly contradicted opposing party’s witness (DW-2).
• Their inability to produce it earlier was not due to any fault on their part but rather arose due to developments beyond their control.
• Fairness required parity, as defendants had already been permitted to adduce additional evidence earlier.

Respondent

• The application was belated as evidence had already concluded.
• One office record clerk had already been examined and thus calling another officer was unnecessary.
• Application was an attempt to fill lacunae and not justified at this late stage.

Factual Background

The petitioner-society filed a civil suit for declaration against the respondents. After notice, defendants 1–6 filed their written statements and issues were framed. All parties led their respective evidence. Defendant No. 4 (Additional Registrar of Societies) when deposed as DW-2 stated that amendments made by the plaintiff-society were rejected, but also admitted in certified copies issued by his office that the governing body as per plaintiff’s case was approved. Subsequently, defendants 1–3 were permitted by the court to adduce additional evidence. When the case was fixed for final arguments, the petitioners sought to bring on record additional evidence arising out of a subsequent FIR and investigation, directly relevant to the dispute. The trial court dismissed their application as belated and unnecessary, prompting the present revision.

Statutory Analysis

• The judgment interprets Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, recognizing the court’s inherent power to admit additional evidence even after closure of evidence and arguments, provided justice so demands.
• The court reiterates that procedural rules should serve the ends of justice, not impede it.
• There was reference to interpretation of Order XVIII Rule 17-A, though that provision was omitted in 2002; the court nevertheless follows the Supreme Court’s guidance that Section 151 CPC’s inherent powers fill the procedural gap for justice-oriented measures.
• No Constitutional provisions were invoked.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No dissenting or concurring opinions: Single judge bench; only speaking order by Justice Mandeep Pannu.

Procedural Innovations

• The judgment reinforces the practice that subsequently arising, significant evidence may be admitted at any stage in civil proceedings, even post trial, through exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC, subject to the opposing party being allowed fair opportunity to rebut or cross-examine.
• The court imposed cost sanctions to discipline procedural delay but preferred substantive justice.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed (The High Court applies established Supreme Court precedent, affirming the justice-first approach under Section 151 CPC for adducing post-trial additional evidence.)

Citations

• K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275
• Ram Rati v. Mange Ram (D) through LRs, 2016 AIR (SC) 1343