Courts should grant one final opportunity to lead evidence where justice so requires.

The petitioner/plaintiff challenged the order dated 2 September 2026 of the Commercial Court, Tis Hazari Courts, whereby its right to lead evidence in CS (COMM) No. 982 of 2025 was closed.

The petitioner submitted that its Director was a senior citizen, had been unwell, and was consequently unable to provide timely and proper instructions for preparation and recording of evidence.

The respondent opposed the petition, contending that the evidence had already been closed, arguments on behalf of the plaintiff had substantially been heard on 17 September 2026, and the petitioner had produced no documentary proof of the Director’s illness.

Earlier, with the parties’ consent, three months had been fixed for completion of evidence before the Local Commissioner.

1. Whether the petitioner’s right to lead evidence should be restored despite the earlier closure of evidence and the progress of final arguments?

2. Whether, in the interests of justice, the petitioner should be granted one final opportunity to lead evidence subject to costs and a fixed procedural timetable?

The Court applied the principle that the right to lead evidence is central to a fair trial and forms part of natural justice and fair play.

It relied on Deepak v. Ramesh Sethi, CM(M) 306/2022, decided on 8 April 2022, which held that there is no straitjacket formula for granting opportunities to lead evidence and that courts should avoid hyper-technical denial of such opportunity unless the party has been unconscionably indolent.

The Court also applied the discretionary principle that a final opportunity may be granted where the circumstances preventing the party from leading evidence are sufficiently explained, subject to appropriate terms and costs.

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had previously been granted an opportunity to lead evidence and that the parties had agreed to a three-month period for completing evidence.

Nevertheless, it accepted that the petitioner had explained circumstances stated to be beyond its control and concluded that the interests of justice would be better served by permitting one final opportunity.

Applying the principle in Deepak, the Court treated the right to present evidence as integral to a fair adjudication and declined to uphold closure on a rigidly technical basis.

To balance the respondent’s prejudice and avoid further delay, the Court imposed costs and prescribed strict timelines for filing affidavits, cross-examination, and rehearing of arguments.

The petitioner was directed to file affidavits of evidence of all witnesses before the Local Commissioner within 15 days; the respondent was permitted to file its witness affidavits within the following 15 days; and cross-examination was to be completed within one month from the respondent’s filing.

The Commercial Court was directed to hear the arguments afresh thereafter.

The relief was made subject to the petitioner paying ₹15,000 as costs directly to the respondent before the Local Commissioner on the next date of hearing.

The question of an amicable settlement was left open for consideration by the concerned court, and the petition and pending applications were disposed of.