Back
INDERJEET SINGH
Sukh Sagar Buildcon Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging closure of evidence in a writ petition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for and against reopening evidence. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's reasoning for allowing evidence submission. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. writ petitions allowed with costs and evidence submission deadline. (Para 7) |
ORDER :
(Inderjeet Singh, J.)
These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff challenging the order dated 12.10.2022 whereby the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff was closed by the trial Court as well as the order dated 16.11.2022 whereby the application submitted by the petitioner-plaintiff under Section 151 C.P.C. for reopening of evidence was dismissed by the trial Court.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of order of sub division and mandatory injunction. Initially the suit filed by the petitioner plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court vide order dated 22.07.2014. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the respondent Nos.6 & 7 filed Civil First Appeal No.459/2014 before this court which was allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this court and matter was remanded back to the learned trial Court
The court upheld the trial Court's discretion in managing evidence, ruling that repeated failures by the plaintiff to present evidence justified the dismissal of the reopening application.
Defendants must comply with procedural requirements and take timely action to adduce evidence, failing which their plea to reopen evidence may be dismissed.
Reopening evidence or recalling witnesses post-trial requires compelling justification; mere intent to fill evidential gaps is insufficient.
The court reaffirmed the principle that parties must diligently prosecute their cases and that undue adjournments harm the justice system.
Courts may close plaintiff's evidence after multiple (more than three) wasted opportunities in old suits; delays often due to parties' conduct, not judicial inaction; no interference warranted.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
