Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DEEPAK GUPTA
H.G.K. Developers Pvt. Limited – Appellant
Versus
Mitter Fasteners – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
1. Petitioners herein are the plaintiffs of civil suit No.1038 of 2014 titled as “M/s H.G.K. Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. M/s Mitter Fasteners and Others”, pending before learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Payal. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 04.09.2025 (Annexure P-9), whereby an application moved by Petitioners-plaintiffs seeking permission to lead additional evidence has been declined.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has drawn attention towards application (Annexure P-7) which was moved under Section 151 CPC for leading additional evidence, submitting that the documents proposed to be produced in additional evidence were only the certified copy of the sale deed dated 13.02.2013 and four jama-bandis of different years and that all these documents are per se admissible. It is also pointed out that all these documents were already available on the trial Court record but inadvertently, the same were not exhibited by counsel for the Petitioners- plaintiffs.
3. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that while rejecting the application, the trial Court observed that after framing the issues on 30.10.2012, plai
The court allowed a petition for additional evidence despite previous adjournments, citing the admissibility of the documents proposed.
Additional evidence at rebuttal must clarify issues, not cover previous omissions; courts must ensure applications are not used to delay proceedings.
A court may permit additional evidence to ensure fair adjudication if it is relevant, even after evidence closure, stressing the necessity to examine evidence related to a Will in contested property ....
The purpose of the court is to do complete justice between the parties and mere technicalities should not be a stumbling block in the cause of justice.
Court ruled that additional evidence should not be permitted at rebuttal if it is merely an effort to fill gaps in prior evidence without demonstrated diligence.
The court emphasized the requirement for additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause, as per the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 of the C.P.C. and releva....
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.
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
