Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Pankaj Kalia – Appellant
Versus
Harbhajan Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Virinder Aggarwal, J.
The civil revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 10.09.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur whereby the application filed by respondent for additional evidence has been allowed.
2. Vide this application respondent-plaintiff has sought permission to prove on record map by examining draftsman and Halqa Patwari and mutations No. 6341, 6342 and 6258 with amended site plan of mutation. The application was moved on the grounds that applicant-plaintiff inadvertently closed the evidence without examining the witnesses and it would be helpful for the Court to arrive at correct decision. The learned Civil Judge allowed the application on the grounds that grounds mentioned in the application seems to be genuine and every party should be given proper opportunity to prove his case by leading his evidence. The order has been assailed on the grounds that respondent has got sufficient opportunities to lead his evidence and he himself has closed his evidence and once evidence is closed the Court has no jurisdiction to re-open the same except under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC or Order VII Rul
The court affirmed that inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC should complement existing rules and not replace them, highlighting the limits of reopening evidence post-closure.
The power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be used with circumspection and care, only where it is absolutely necessary, when there is no provision in the Code governing the mat....
Reopening evidence or recalling witnesses post-trial requires compelling justification; mere intent to fill evidential gaps is insufficient.
Engaging a new counsel cannot be a ground for reopening evidence and filling up lacunae in the case.
The court emphasized that additional evidence may only be permitted under exceptional circumstances, not as a routine, and evaluated the impact of delay on justice delivery.
The right to lead evidence is pivotal to a fair trial and partakes of the character of natural justice and fair play. The recall of a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 should be for clarifying any do....
The inherent power of the court under Section 151 of CPC can be invoked to reopen evidence for the ends of justice, and the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC should be used to clarify ambiguities in....
The Court ruled that reopening witness evidence for cross-examination under CPC Order XVIII Rule 17 is permissible only to clarify ambiguities, not to fill evidence gaps after closure, and subsequent....
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
