Courts may grant a final opportunity to lead evidence despite prior delays, subject to costs and no further adjournments.

Respondent No. 1 filed O.S. No. 58/2018 seeking recovery of money with future interest.

The petitioner, defendant No. 1, repeatedly failed to participate in the trial proceedings, including by not filing his written statement within time and by failing to cross-examine witnesses despite opportunities.

The Trial Court had previously allowed applications to reopen evidence and recall witnesses.

After the petitioner was absent when the matter was posted for his evidence, the Trial Court treated his evidence as nil and posted the suit for arguments.

The petitioner then filed I.A. Nos. 10 and 11 under Section 151 CPC to reopen the case and recall the order closing his evidence; the Trial Court rejected both applications on 13 March 2024.

The petitioner challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Trial Court’s rejection of the petitioner’s applications to reopen the case and recall the order closing his evidence warranted interference.

2. Whether the petitioner should be granted a final opportunity to lead evidence, subject to conditions, despite his repeated defaults.

Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, preserves the court’s inherent powers to make orders necessary for the ends of justice; the applications before the Trial Court invoked that provision.

In exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, the High Court considered whether the circumstances justified interfering with the Trial Court’s order.

The Court applied the principle that a litigant’s conduct and repeated defaults may justify refusing further opportunities, but that an opportunity to present evidence may be granted where necessary to protect the litigant’s valuable rights, subject to conditions that promote expeditious disposal.

No precedent was cited.

The Court accepted that the petitioner had repeatedly failed to participate diligently, allowing evidence to be closed and then seeking reopening or recall, and that the Trial Court had relied on this conduct in rejecting the applications.

Nevertheless, considering the valuable rights involved in the suit, the Court concluded that the petitioner should receive one final opportunity to lead evidence.

It balanced that opportunity against the history of delay by requiring payment of costs and prohibiting further adjournments.

I.A. Nos. 10 and 11 were allowed, permitting the petitioner to lead evidence upon payment of ₹10,000 to the Legal Services Authority.

The petitioner was directed not to seek any further adjournment and to cooperate with the Trial Court, which was requested to dispose of the suit expeditiously.