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 case. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that it was a belated attempt to reopen the defence evidence and to delay the proceedings.

4. The learned Trial Court, after hearing both sides and perusing the record, dismissed the application by recording a categorical finding that the defendants had availed sufficient opportunities, that no explanation whatsoever was furnished as to why the proposed witnesses could not be examined earlier, and that no new or subsequent circumstance had arisen warranting recall of the order closing the defence evidence. It was further held that the application was an afterthought intended to delay the proceedings and was not maintainable.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before this Court that the Trial Court adopted a hyper-technical approach and failed to appreciate that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if the additional witnesses were examined, as she would have an opportunity to cross-examine them. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275 to contend that procedural law should advance the cause of justice.

6. Since short controversy is involved in the present petition, no notice is required to be issued to the respondent.

7. This Court has considered the submissions and has carefully examined the impugned order as well as the record. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is extremely limited. This Court does not sit in appeal over discretionary orders passed by lower courts and interference is warranted only where there is patent perversity, jurisdictional error or manifest miscarriage of justice.

8. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the defence evidence was closed by a judicial order after granting more than adequate opportunities. The petitioners neither challenged that order nor sought its recall by disclosing any legally sustainable reason. The application for additional evidence does not disclose any new fact, subsequent development or circumstance which could not have been anticipated during the defence evidence. The proposed witnesses were neither newly discovered nor shown to be unavailable earlier. The plea of “just adjudication” cannot be used as a tool to reopen proceedings indefinitely, particularly when the party seeking indulgence has been grossly negligent.

9. The reliance placed upon K.K. Velusamy’s case (supra) is wholly misplaced. The said judgment itself cautions that inherent powers cannot be exercised to reopen evidence as a matter of routine or to undo the consequences of deliberate inaction or negligence. Discretion under Section 151 CPC is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, no