The High Court of Punjab and Haryana reaffirmed that courts may rightly reject applications for leading additional evidence at an advanced stage of trial if the applicant does not clearly disclose what evidence is sought to be produced and has already been afforded adequate opportunities. This judgment upholds the prevailing procedural norm and serves as binding authority for future civil litigation on this issue.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR/5816/2025 of KARTAR SINGH Vs VISHAL JOSHI AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC011320942025 |
| Date of Registration | 25-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms trial court’s discretion to refuse additional evidence where due process has been followed and specifics of evidence are not disclosed |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether a party can be permitted to adduce additional evidence at a late stage of trial under Article 227 of the Constitution without specifying the evidence sought to be led. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner (defendant no. 5), along with his brothers, was party to a civil suit. After closure of plaintiff’s evidence and other defendants’ evidence, petitioner and his brothers failed to request adjournment or lead evidence when given the opportunity. Later, through an application, petitioner sought to lead additional evidence on the grounds that his counsel had fallen ill, but did not specify what evidence was to be produced. The application for additional evidence was refused by the trial court. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows | Affirms trial court’s discretion regarding additional evidence when adequate opportunity has been granted |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that a party seeking to lead additional evidence at a late stage must clearly disclose the specific evidence sought to be introduced.
- Mere illness of counsel or vague grounds are insufficient in the absence of a specific adjournment or evidence details.
- Trial courts’ orders closing evidence, after adequate opportunities, are not easily interfered with under Article 227 unless perversity or illegality is shown.
- Applications for additional evidence lacking specificity are liable to be dismissed without detailed inquiry.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court reviewed the sequence of events, noting that all defendants had been given ample opportunity to lead evidence and that closures happened in their presence.
- The petitioner’s application under Article 227 did not specify the additional evidence sought to be produced, either in the petition or in oral submissions.
- The presence of counsel at the material stage, without any request for adjournment or indication of unawareness about the evidence stage, undermined allegations of procedural unfairness.
- The High Court found no perversity or illegality in the trial court’s decision to reject the belated and vague application.
- Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction was not invoked, as there was no demonstrable miscarriage of justice or denial of fair opportunity.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought permission to lead additional evidence on the ground that their advocate had fallen ill and failed to inform them about the requirement to produce evidence.
- No specific disclosure in the application regarding what additional evidence was intended to be produced.
- Counsel requested “one opportunity” for additional evidence but could not explain what evidence was sought when asked by the High Court.
Factual Background
The petitioner, defendant no. 5 in a civil suit, failed to produce evidence despite being provided with several effective opportunities during the trial. Petitioner’s counsel was present when evidence was closed and made no request for adjournment. Subsequently, an application was made seeking to adduce additional evidence, citing illness of counsel but not specifying what evidence was to be led. The trial court dismissed the application, and the petitioner challenged this order under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India was invoked to challenge the denial of permission to lead additional evidence.
- The judgment emphasizes the procedural principle that judicial discretion to admit additional evidence must be exercised sparingly, especially after multiple opportunities and closure of evidence at trial.
- No other statutory sections or constitutional provisions have been discussed or interpreted in detail.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment upholds and applies existing procedural law governing the admission of additional evidence at a late stage.