Delayed additional valuation evidence may be admitted where the original valuer’s incapacity prevents proof.

The plaintiff filed an interlocutory application seeking leave to bring on record an additional valuation and assessment report dated 8 July 2025, prepared by Mr. G. N. Pal, Chartered Engineer and Valuer.

The plaintiff explained that the earlier valuation report dated 23 October 2009 had been prepared by Mr. Banerjee, who was subsequently found to be over 82 years old, bedridden, and suffering from dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and the effects of a cerebral stroke.

Consequently, he was allegedly unable to give evidence or prove his report.

The plaintiff stated that, after commencement of the evidence of PW-1, it appointed another expert in or about June 2025, resulting in preparation of the new report on 8 July 2025.

The defendant disputed the existence and contents of the earlier report. The plaintiff therefore sought permission to discover, produce, and rely upon the additional report.

1. Whether the plaintiff had shown sufficient and exceptional circumstances to justify bringing the additional valuation report on record at a late stage of the proceedings.

2. Whether allowing the report to be incorporated would determine or prejudge its evidentiary value or the defendant’s right to challenge and cross-examine the relevant witness.

The Court applied the procedural principle that an additional document may be permitted to be incorporated into the record where the applicant demonstrates exceptional circumstances and establishes that the delay was beyond its control.

The Court distinguished the act of allowing a document to be placed on record from the subsequent adjudication of its admissibility, proof, and evidentiary value. Such evidentiary questions must be determined in accordance with law, while the opposing party must be afforded an opportunity to make submissions and conduct cross-examination.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court accepted that the plaintiff could not reasonably have relied on the original valuer to prove the 2009 report because of his advanced age and serious medical condition.

It further accepted that the plaintiff engaged a replacement expert only after the evidentiary difficulty became apparent and that the new report was prepared shortly thereafter.

These circumstances were found to be beyond the plaintiff’s control and sufficiently exceptional to warrant incorporation of the additional document.

However, the Court expressly clarified that allowing the report onto the record did not amount to an assessment of its contents, admissibility, or probative value. Those matters remained open for determination in accordance with law, subject to the defendant’s right to object, make submissions, and conduct cross-examination.

The plaintiff was permitted to incorporate and separately disclose the valuation and assessment report dated 8 July 2025 as an additional document, within two weeks of the order, and to serve a copy on the defendant’s Advocate-on-Record.

The Court reserved the question of the report’s evidentiary value and preserved the defendant’s right to make submissions and conduct cross-examination.

On the parties’ joint request, the time for completion of the commission was extended until 15 December 2026 on the existing terms and conditions.

The application was disposed of without costs.