Applications to produce documents under Order VIII Rule 1(3) CPC must receive liberal consideration in the interests of justice.

The petitioners, defendants in a suit for eviction and recovery of rent under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, challenged orders passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gwalior.

On 11.03.2026, the trial court rejected their application for adjournment under Order XVII Rule 1 CPC and closed their right to lead evidence when petitioner No. 2 failed to appear, citing his mother’s illness without supporting medical documentation.

The petitioners’ application under Section 151 CPC seeking recall of that order was rejected on 07.07.2026.

The respondent opposed the petition, asserting that the petitioners had already received several adjournments, including opportunities granted upon payment of costs, and were delaying the suit despite an earlier direction for expeditious disposal.

The record showed that the petitioners had been granted multiple opportunities between April 2025 and February 2026, but petitioner No. 2 had been present on 06.03.2026, when his cross-examination was partly conducted and adjourned owing to expiry of court hours.

1. Whether the trial court erred in closing the petitioners’ right to lead evidence and in refusing to recall that order under Section 151 CPC, where petitioner No. 2 failed to appear on the date fixed for his remaining cross-examination.

2. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioners’ application under Order VIII Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 CPC for producing judgments concerning connected properties on the ground of delay.

3. Whether the plaintiff could be recalled under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for limited cross-examination concerning the documents sought to be produced.

4. Whether the impugned orders required interference in the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to secure a fair trial and expeditious adjudication.

The Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to correct procedural illegality and prevent denial of a fair opportunity of trial.

Order XVII Rule 1 CPC governs adjournments, while Section 151 CPC preserves the court’s inherent power to recall procedural orders where necessary in the interests of justice.

Order VIII Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 CPC permits the court to receive documents at a later stage where their production is material for a proper adjudication; the Court relied on Sugandhi (Dead) by LRs and Another v. P. Rajkumar, Civil Appeal No. 3427/2020, decided on 13.10.2020, for the principle that applications to bring documents on record under Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC should ordinarily be considered liberally.

Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC permits recall of a witness for a limited and relevant purpose, including cross-examination regarding documents subsequently brought on record.

These procedural powers must be balanced against the need to prevent delay and ensure compliance with timelines imposed by the court.

Although the petitioners had received several earlier opportunities and had contributed to delay, the Court considered that petitioner No. 2 had been present on 06.03.2026 and that his cross-examination had already proceeded on 29.01.2026 and 06.03.2026.

In these circumstances, permanently closing the evidence was disproportionate, and one final opportunity subject to substantial costs would preserve the petitioners’ right to a fair trial without disregarding the respondent’s inconvenience.

The Court further held that rejection of the document-production application principally because the petitioners’ evidence had been closed could not survive once that closure was set aside.

Given the nature of the judgments concerning connected properties and their potential relevance to the issue of bona fide requirement, the application was to be assessed liberally in accordance with Sugandhi.

Consequently, limited recall of the plaintiff for cross-examination on those documents was also justified.

At the same time, the Court imposed strict conditions and directed expeditious disposal to prevent further misuse of the procedural indulgence.

The orders dated 11.03.2026 and 07.07.2026 closing the petitioners’ right to lead evidence and refusing recall were set aside, subject to payment of costs of ₹25,000 to the respondent.

Upon proof of payment before the trial court, the petitioners’ right to conclude their evidence was restored, with only one final opportunity being granted; failure to comply would revive the earlier orders and permit the trial court to proceed further.

The application under Order VIII Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 CPC for taking the judgments on record was allowed, and the application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for limited recall of the plaintiff for cross-examination on those documents was also allowed.

The petitioners were required to comply strictly with the trial court’s timelines, and the trial court was directed to endeavour to dispose of the suit preferably within three months from receipt of the certified order, with the petitioners directed to cooperate.

Pending applications, if any, were closed.