A suit’s pendency alone cannot justify denying a party the opportunity to lead further evidence.

Respondents 1–3 brought a suit for partition and separate possession against the petitioner and respondents 4–5.

After the plaintiffs closed their evidence, the defendants led evidence, and the case was posted for final arguments.

The petitioner sought to examine DW.4, who was absent on 31 May 2024 due to ill-health; the trial court closed the defendants’ evidence and posted the suit for arguments.

The petitioner then applied under Order XVIII Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to recall and reopen the case.

The trial court rejected both applications, principally because the suit had been pending since 2016.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the applications to recall and reopen the case so the petitioner could examine DW.4.

2. Whether the suit’s long pendency, by itself, justified refusing the petitioner the opportunity to lead further evidence.

The petitioner invoked Order XVIII Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC in seeking recall of the witness and reopening of the case; the judgment does not set out a separate statutory test or rely on precedent governing those provisions.

The Court applied the principle that a suit’s age, without more, is not a sufficient reason to deny a party the opportunity to lead further evidence where that evidence is relevant to adjudicating the dispute.

The petition was considered under the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court noted that DW.4’s evidence had not been given because the witness was reportedly ill on the scheduled hearing date, and that arguments had not yet been addressed.

Given that the suit concerned partition and separate possession, the Court considered the parties’ property rights to be at stake and concluded that excluding the proposed evidence could cause hardship to the petitioner.

It held that the trial court had erred by relying on the suit’s eight-year pendency as the basis for rejecting the applications, without adequately considering the circumstances and the need for the evidence.

The relief was made subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 10,000 to the respondents on the next date of hearing.