The High Court clarified that it may set aside an order of a subordinate court allowing additional evidence if the applicant voluntarily withdraws the underlying application; this judgment reaffirms existing practice and provides binding authority for similar procedural situations in civil litigation under Article 227.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR/3103/2025 of MANOJ KUMAR Vs MAMTA RANI AND ORS |
| CNR | PHHC010815332025 |
| Date of Registration | 19-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure / Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 |
| Questions of Law | Whether a High Court can set aside a subordinate court’s order allowing additional evidence if the underlying application is withdrawn by the applicant during pendency of revision. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
Where the respondent-plaintiff withdraws an application for additional evidence filed before the trial court, the High Court, in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, may set aside the order passed below which had allowed the additional evidence. This enables the suit to proceed without the additional evidence and prevents the underlying order from complicating future adjudication. The approach facilitates expeditious disposal of the main suit and aligns with the party’s intention to pursue the matter without the extra material. The court’s act is procedural in nature and preserves the rights of both parties with respect to trial evidence. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The plaintiff filed an application to lead additional evidence, which was allowed by the trial court. During revision, the plaintiff sought to withdraw this application, desiring the suit to proceed without reliance on such evidence. Accordingly, the High Court permitted withdrawal and set aside the impugned order. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate civil courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts dealing with analogous procedural facts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that if a party withdraws an application (such as for additional evidence) during revision, the High Court may set aside the subordinate court’s order allowing that application, preventing unnecessary complications in trial.
- Provides a clear procedural route for parties wishing to retract interlocutory applications even after a subordinate court has ruled on them.
- Lawyers may cite this for efficient case management and speedy disposal where parties no longer seek additional evidence admitted by subordinate courts.
- Shows readiness of the court to accommodate parties’ revised litigation strategy post preliminary orders.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The revision petition challenged the trial court’s order allowing additional evidence.
- At the High Court hearing, counsel for the applicant/plaintiff stated, on instructions, that the plaintiff wished to withdraw the underlying application for additional evidence so the suit could proceed.
- The High Court permitted the withdrawal and, as a direct result, set aside the impugned order of the trial court.
- The core reasoning: when the substantive interlocutory request (application for additional evidence) is withdrawn, any order granting it ceases to have operative purpose and may be set aside to prevent residual procedural inequity.
- The matter was disposed of accordingly, with all other pending applications also closed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Challenged the order of the trial court allowing respondent’s application for additional evidence.
Respondent
- Through counsel, expressly sought withdrawal of the application for additional evidence, indicating intent to proceed with the main suit without it.
Factual Background
The plaintiff (respondent No. 1) in a civil suit before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala, filed an application for leading additional evidence. The trial court allowed this application. The defendant (petitioner) filed a revision petition under Article 227 before the High Court challenging this order. During the revision, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the application for additional evidence, seeking to proceed with the suit without its use. The High Court allowed the withdrawal, set aside the impugned order, and disposed of the petition.
Statutory Analysis
- The High Court exercised its supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
- The posture of the judgment aligns with the procedural principles governing withdrawal of interlocutory applications in civil litigation.
- The judgment did not elaborate on any specific sections of the Civil Procedure Code or other statutes.
Procedural Innovations
- Allows and affirms withdrawal of an interlocutory application after it has been decided by the lower court, with express setting aside of subordinate court’s order, streamlining the trial process.
- No new rules or guidelines issued.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed