The High Court clarified that procedural law serves the cause of justice and should not defeat substantive rights where unavoidable medical circumstances are present and duly substantiated; thus, denial of opportunity to present evidence due to genuine medical incapacity, without proper judicial consideration, amounts to prejudice. This judgment reaffirms settled law and can be used as binding authority within the Punjab & Haryana jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR/7503/2025 of SUNIL DHAWAN AND OTHERS Vs ANIL DHAWAN AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | PHHC011685062025 |
| Date of Registration | 15-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding (within P&H jurisdiction), Clarification of discretion under Article 227 |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure / Procedural Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether procedural deadlines for closing evidence can be relaxed in cases of genuine and duly substantiated medical inability to appear and conclude evidence. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that while several opportunities had been afforded, the circumstances in September 2025 were exceptional and beyond the control of the petitioners, as substantiated by medical records. Procedural law is a handmaid of justice and should not defeat substantive rights when there is bona fide and substantiated cause. The order closing evidence mechanically, without considering medical evidence, was prejudicial. Therefore, the petitioners should be given a final opportunity to complete their evidence, with costs to compensate the other side for delay. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Principle that procedural rules are meant to advance the cause of justice, not thwart it on mere technicalities, especially when genuine, medically proven inability is shown. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The dispute concerned partition by metes and bounds and other consequential reliefs. During the defence evidence stage, key defendants and witnesses could not appear due to a bona fide medical emergency (stroke/paralysis), substantiated by records. The trial court closed their evidence without appreciating these circumstances or the supporting medical documents. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows | Well-settled principle that procedural law should not defeat justice, specifically as regards medical incapacity justifying procedural relaxation |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court reaffirmed that strict enforcement of procedural deadlines for concluding evidence must yield to the cause of justice where overriding medical incapacity is substantiated.
- Judicial orders closing evidence mechanically, without considering material medical evidence, may be set aside as amounting to prejudice.
- Final opportunities for evidence completion can be granted with costs, balancing justice and procedural discipline.
- Lawyers facing similar issues can rely on this judgment—especially where delays were due to bona fide, proven medical emergencies and not intentional default.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the sequence of events, noting multiple opportunities given, but also the exceptional medical circumstances prevailing in September 2025 (i.e., stroke and paralysis suffered by the defendant, with supporting hospital and prescription records on file).
- It criticized the trial court for passing a mechanical order without conscious application of mind to these medical records or the context that the delay was beyond the petitioners’ control.
- Reiterated the settled legal principle that procedural laws are meant to facilitate justice, not to obstruct it on technical grounds, particularly where the cause for delay is bona fide and duly substantiated by evidence.
- Noted that the burden for delay in cross-examination could not be placed on defendants where it resulted from the plaintiff’s own adjournments.
- Allowed the revision petition, setting aside the impugned order, and granted two effective opportunities to complete the entire evidence (including pending cross-examination), subject to reasonable costs for the delay, but made clear no further adjournments would be permitted thereafter.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- No intentional or deliberate default in concluding evidence.
- Absence of key defendant and witness was purely due to unavoidable medical circumstances, substantiated by records.
- Mechanical order closing defence evidence without considering medical evidence amounts to denial of justice.
- Should not be penalized for non-appearance or default of a summoned witness; burden of cross-examination delayed at plaintiff’s instance.
Factual Background
The case arose from a civil suit for partition and related reliefs over immovable property left by the parties’ father. After issues were framed, plaintiff’s evidence took over two years before being closed. During the defendants’ evidence stage, the main defendant suffered a stroke and partial paralysis, requiring hospitalisation. Applications for exemption from appearance were made and supported by medical documents, but the trial court closed the defendants’ evidence without appreciating these documents, leading to the present revision petition.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India was invoked to seek judicial intervention against the trial court’s order.
- The Court discussed the purpose of procedural laws: to advance justice and not defeat substantive rights because of procedural technicalities when the delay is bona fide and supported by evidence.
- Cross-reference to general principles governing the exercise of inherent and supervisory jurisdiction where procedural errors cause substantive injustice.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court ordered specific relief: two effective opportunities for completing evidence, including pending cross-examinations, subject to payment of costs as compensation for delay.
- Explicit restriction: No further adjournments to be permitted beyond the two opportunities.
- The order also clarified that no further notice in the matter was required in view of the nature of relief granted.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed