A party’s right to lead evidence may be restored on terms to prevent prejudice.

The petitioners, plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No. 681 of 2010, challenged orders closing their right to lead further evidence and refusing to reopen that right.

The plaintiff’s oral evidence had concluded in November 2025.

On 12 January 2026, the trial court allowed the defendant’s application at Exhibit 192 and closed the plaintiffs’ right to lead further evidence; the petitioners contended that the application had not been served on them.

Their subsequent application to reopen the right was rejected on 17 July 2026.

The petitioners sought relief under Article 227 of the Constitution, including restoration of their right to lead evidence.

The respondent, an 81-year-old woman, did not oppose allowing the petition but sought an expedited trial and advance disclosure of the witnesses.

1. Whether the trial court’s orders closing and refusing to reopen the petitioners’ right to lead further evidence warranted interference under Article 227.

2. Whether that right should be restored subject to directions protecting the respondent’s interest in an expeditious trial.

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the principle that procedural rules are a “handmaid of justice” and that a hyper-technical approach should be avoided where appropriate conditions, including costs, can prevent prejudice to the opposing party.

The Court also considered the need to balance the opportunity to present evidence against prejudice caused by delay, particularly given the respondent’s age.

The Court noted that the application to close the plaintiffs’ evidence appeared not to have been served on them, and that the trial court had nevertheless closed their right; the subsequent request to reopen it was also rejected.

It had earlier considered that any lapse by the plaintiffs could be addressed through conditions, including costs, rather than by denying them the opportunity to lead evidence.

At the final hearing, the respondent did not oppose relief, subject to prompt progress of the suit.

The Court therefore restored the petitioners’ evidentiary opportunity while requiring advance filing of their witness list and examination-in-chief affidavits, and directing expedition.

The petitioners were directed to file their witness list and affidavits in lieu of examination-in-chief within two weeks; the trial court was requested to decide the suit as early as possible, preferably by 31 October 2027.

The respondent was permitted to withdraw the Rs. 10,000 deposited as costs.