Appellate courts cannot restore the right to lead evidence when a party neither challenges the original closure order nor provides convincing justification for non-appearance; mere claims, unbacked by material on record, are insufficient. This ruling upholds established procedural law and is binding on all subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh hearing Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CMPMO/617/2024 of KUSAM BALA Vs RAJEEV PATHANIA AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HPHC010528402024 |
| Date of Registration | 22-10-2024 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms established procedural law regarding closure of evidence and restoration of such rights |
| Type of Law | Procedural Law / Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 |
| Questions of Law | Whether appellate courts can restore a party’s right to lead evidence where the closure order was unchallenged and no justification is substantiated |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Respondents failed to lead evidence before the Trial Court despite being granted more than reasonable opportunities, resulting in closure of their evidence. This closure order was unchallenged before the Trial Court. The Trial Court decided the application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, on merits. On appeal, the Appellate Court set aside the Trial Court order citing lack of appearance due to alleged denial of leave by an employer, and reduced compensation. The High Court, finding no material for these conclusions and no challenge or explanation for non-appearance, restored the Trial Court’s decision. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially in matters relating to procedure under the Domestic Violence Act |
| Follows | Established procedural principles regarding closure of evidence and restoration of such opportunities |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that appellate courts cannot restore the right to lead evidence unless the closure order was challenged or material justification for absence is provided.
- Unsubstantiated claims, such as denial of leave by an employer, cannot form the basis for appellate interference unless supported by material on record.
- Number of opportunities (whether three or more) is not material when reasonable opportunity is given and remains unavailed.
- Compensation-related findings by appellate courts lacking evidentiary backing are unsustainable.
- Establishes the importance of timely procedural challenge and cogent explanation when rights are foreclosed due to default.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court scrutinized the orders of the Trial and Appellate Courts, focusing on the closure of the respondents’ evidence due to repeated non-appearance despite multiple opportunities.
- The closure order by the Trial Court was never challenged by the respondents, nor was any cogent explanation furnished for non-appearance.
- The Appellate Court erred in restoring respondents’ right to lead evidence based on a claim (denial of leave by employer) unsupported by materials on record.
- Even assuming only three opportunities were provided, repeated failure to avail reasonable chances does not entitle a party to further indulgence without clear justification.
- Appellate findings regarding excessive compensation were held unsustainable in the absence of contrary evidence.
- The High Court set aside the Appellate Court’s judgment and restored the Trial Court’s order, reinforcing settled procedural law regarding closure of evidence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The respondents failed to lead evidence despite multiple reasonable opportunities before the Trial Court.
- The order closing the right to lead evidence was never challenged by the respondents before the Trial Court.
- No valid or material justification was provided by the respondents for their non-appearance.
Respondent
- Claimed (before the Appellate Court) that respondent No. 1 could not appear due to being denied leave by his employer.
- Sought another opportunity to lead evidence and challenged the amount of compensation as excessive.
Factual Background
The case stemmed from an application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The respondents repeatedly failed to lead evidence before the Trial Court despite several opportunities; therefore, the right to lead evidence was closed by order dated 03.06.2015. This order remained unchallenged by the respondents, and the Trial Court adjudicated the matter on merits, awarding compensation. On appeal, the Appellate Court, citing alleged inability of respondent No. 1 to attend (due to denial of leave), reopened the opportunity to lead evidence and reduced the compensation. The High Court found this unsustainable in law.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Application for protection orders and other reliefs considered.
- Procedural Law: The scope and finality of orders on closure of evidence; the necessary procedural steps to challenge such orders and to seek restoration of closed rights.
- No expansion or reading down of statutory provisions; the judgment strictly reiterates settled procedure.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The decision upholds and clarifies existing procedural rules regarding the closure of evidence and restoration of such rights in appellate proceedings.