Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANDEEP SHARMA AND ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
SITA DEVI – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MANDEEP PANNU, J.
1. The present civil revision petition has been filed by Sandeep Sharma and Neeraj Sharma, defendants in Civil Suit No. 19 of 2022 titled Sita Devi vs. Sandeep Sharma and another, against Sita Devi, plaintiff therein.
2. The petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kalka, District Panchkula, whereby the application moved by the defendants under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to examine additional evidence after closure of defence evidence was dismissed.
3. Briefly stated, the evidence of defendants in the suit was closed by a specific court order dated 27.03.2025 after availing more than ten effective opportunities. The said order closing the evidence was never assailed by the defendants by way of any appropriate proceedings. Thereafter, the defendants moved an application under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to examine two additional witnesses, namely the previous owner of the land and the village Lambardar, contending that their examination was necessary for just adjudication of the
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 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.
Reopening evidence or recalling witnesses post-trial requires compelling justification; mere intent to fill evidential gaps is insufficient.
The court emphasized the importance of judicial discretion and procedural law in achieving the ends of justice, highlighting that the closure of evidence should be a last resort and adequate opportun....
The court confirmed that repeated failures to present evidence warranted closure of defence as per CPC, emphasizing that Article 227 does not permit appellate interference unless jurisdictional error....
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
