An application for additional evidence or recalling witnesses under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC cannot be used as a routine measure to fill evidentiary lacunae, protract proceedings, or compel a non-consenting spouse to undergo medical testing, especially when filed after the conclusion of trial evidence.

Order

1. By way of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged legality, validity and propriety of order dated 15.05.2026 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gangapur, District Bhilwara, (“learned Trial Court”) in Case No. 49/2024 (Nidhi Jingar v. Bihari Lal Jingar), whereby application filed by petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), was rejected.

2. Explaining facts of case, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that respondent–wife instituted petition under Section 13(1)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“Act of 1955”), seeking a decree of divorce on the grounds of desertion, cruelty and allegations pertaining to incapacity of petitioner–husband.

2.1 Petitioner–husband filed a reply to said petition raising counter-allegations against respondent–wife and it was averred that despite efforts made by petitioner-husband to preserve the matrimonial relationship, respondent-wife was unwilling to live in matrimonial cohabitation with him.

2.2 Learned counsel submitted that respondent–wife used to give petitioner-husband threats of instituting and implicating him in false criminal and civil proceedings. It is further contended that, despite an order having been passed by competent Court under Section 9 of the Act of 1955, respondent failed to resume cohabitation with petitioner. The allegations regarding impotency of petitioner are stated to be false and it is argued that the same have been levelled solely with the objective to malign and harass him.

2.3 Learned counsel further submitted that during the pendency of proceedings, petitioner moved an application dated 08.05.2026 under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, wherein, in view of the allegations of sexual incompetence, impotency and other sexual infirmities levelled against petitioner, it was prayed that both parties be directed to undergo joint narco-analysis test, polygraph test, medical examination as well as DNA testing and that the applicant (husband) would bear entire cost of aforesaid tests.

2.4 In the reply filed to said application on behalf of non-applicant, it was averred that evidence of both parties had already been concluded and matter was pending for final arguments, and that the present application had been filed at such belated stage only with a view to delay the proceedings. It was further submitted that petitioner had failed to produce any documentary evidence during the course of trial to rebut the allegations regarding his sexual incapacity and impotency and, therefore, the application was merely an attempt to fill lacunae in the evidence already led. It was also contended that respondent–wife could not be compelled to undergo narco-analysis test, polygraph test, medical examination or DNA testing against her will.

2.5 Said application has been dismissed by learned Trial Court vide order dated 15.05.2026 and, aggrieved thereby, petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that learned Trial Court has failed to consider aforesaid application in its proper perspective and, without appreciating substantial issues raised therein, proceeded to dismiss the same.

3.1 It is contended that that said application filed for bringing additional evidence on record was bona fide and necessary for just and complete adjudication of dispute; however, the same was rejected in a predetermined and mechanical manner. Learned counsel argued that allegations of sexual incapacity and impotency levelled against petitioner could effectively be rebutted