A plaintiff’s right to lead evidence may be restored on costs to secure adjudication on the merits.

The petitioners, plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title, partition and permanent injunction, challenged the trial court’s order forfeiting their right to lead evidence and fixing the suit for the defendants’ evidence.

The trial court had granted several opportunities to the plaintiffs to produce evidence after issues were framed on 18 June 2024, but they did not do so; on 8 August 2026, it closed their evidence after they sought another adjournment on the ground of agricultural work.

The plaintiffs invoked Article 227, submitting that the dispute concerned property rights, the defendants’ evidence had not begun, and one further opportunity could be granted subject to costs.

1. Whether the trial court was justified in forfeiting the plaintiffs’ right to lead evidence after they failed to produce it on the dates fixed.

2. Whether the plaintiffs should be granted a further opportunity to lead evidence, subject to costs, in the circumstances of the case.

Article 227 of the Constitution of India provides the High Court with supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.

Under Order XVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a court may consider an application for adjournment; the Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. Km. Chandra Govindji, (2000) 8 SCC 532, held that an adjournment granted on a particular occasion is assessed on the grounds then presented, and earlier adjournments are not, by themselves, a relevant consideration for a later adjournment.

The Court also recognised that the right to lead evidence is substantive and that technicalities should not prevent adjudication on the merits.

The High Court noted that the plaintiffs had received repeated opportunities and had failed to produce their evidence, including after a last opportunity; nevertheless, the suit involved competing claims to title and partition, and the defendants’ evidence had not commenced.

Applying the principle that the right to lead evidence is substantive, the Court considered that forfeiture would impede determination of the dispute on its merits.

It therefore found that one further opportunity was appropriate, while imposing costs and directing that unnecessary adjournments not be granted.

The trial court was directed to fix a date and grant the plaintiffs one opportunity to produce their witnesses, then proceed in accordance with law; no unnecessary adjournments were to be granted, subject to any legal impediment.