When a plaintiff withdraws an application for additional evidence, any order permitting such evidence may be set aside, allowing the main suit to proceed unencumbered. This judgment affirms the court’s discretion to allow such withdrawal under Article 227, without creating new law, and is binding as authority within the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s territorial jurisdiction.
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 authority on subordinate courts; limited to procedural aspect under Article 227 |
| Type of Law | Procedure (Civil) |
| Questions of Law | Effect of plaintiff’s withdrawal of application for additional evidence on prior orders permitting such evidence. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
Upon the plaintiff’s express wish, the application for additional evidence can be withdrawn. Consequently, any order allowing additional evidence stands set aside so that the suit may proceed. The High Court, in the exercise of its powers under Article 227, directed accordingly. No further substantive reasoning on evidence law or broader procedural questions was made, as the matter was disposed in view of the parties’ position. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Respondent No.1-plaintiff had filed an application for additional evidence, which was allowed by the trial court. Before the High Court, the plaintiff wished to withdraw this application, and accordingly, the application was permitted to be withdrawn, and the impugned order set aside. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court clarified that, upon express withdrawal of an application for additional evidence by the plaintiff, any trial court order previously allowing such application may be set aside, allowing the main suit to continue.
- The procedural discretion under Article 227 was exercised to prevent unnecessary litigation on a withdrawn issue and facilitate the progress of the main suit.
- Lawyers can rely on this order for quick disposal in similar situations, arguing that where an ancillary application is withdrawn, related orders can be vacated as a matter of course.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court noted that respondent No.1-plaintiff, through counsel, wished to withdraw the application for additional evidence that had earlier been allowed by the trial court.
- Based on the plaintiff’s unequivocal statement, the court permitted withdrawal of the said application.
- Consequently, the impugned order (allowing additional evidence) was set aside.
- The petition was disposed of on these terms, without adjudication on the merits of the underlying application for additional evidence or laying down broader principles relating to admissibility or procedure.
- The court exercised its power under Article 227 to supervise and direct the lower court’s procedure, ensuring efficiency in the trial process.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Assailed the order of the trial court permitting the plaintiff’s application for additional evidence.
Respondent No.1-Plaintiff
- Through counsel, expressly stated wish to withdraw the application for additional evidence so that the suit might proceed.
Factual Background
- The plaintiff (respondent No.1) had earlier filed an application for permission to lead additional evidence in the trial court.
- The trial court permitted the application on 05.05.2025.
- The defendant (petitioner) challenged this order by filing a revision under Article 227 before the High Court.
- During High Court proceedings, the plaintiff decided to withdraw their application for additional evidence.
- The High Court permitted such withdrawal and set aside the impugned order, thereby disposing of the revision petition.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India was invoked to supervise and correct the procedural order of the lower court.
- No other statutory provisions or detailed interpretations were discussed.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment reaffirmed the procedural option of allowing a party to withdraw an application, and that, as a consequence, related lower court orders may be set aside to allow the suit to proceed.
- No new guidelines or changes to burden of proof were laid down.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms existing procedural principle permitting withdrawal of applications and setting aside consequential orders under court supervision.