Evidence cannot be reopened to examine additional witnesses at the stage of judgment to fill lacunae.

The petitioner-husband filed a petition for nullity of marriage under Sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

After both parties concluded their evidence and advanced final arguments, the case was listed for judgment on 18.09.2025

Following four adjournments at the judgment stage, the respondent-wife filed an application (Exhibit 73) under Order XVIII Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to reopen evidence and examine the President of a matrimonial bureau as an additional witness

The respondent claimed she could not contact the witness earlier due to his ill health

The Family Court, Nagpur, allowed the application on 14.10.2025, a decision the petitioner challenged via this Writ Petition

1. Whether a party can invoke Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC to reopen evidence and examine a new witness at the stage where the case is reserved for judgment.

2. Whether the lack of contact with a witness during the trial constitutes "due diligence" sufficient to permit additional evidence after final arguments.

Order XX Rules 1 to 3 of the CPC, which dictates that once a case is heard, the court shall pronounce judgment, leaving no "hiatus" or intermediate stage for parties to exercise further rights

Three-Judge Bench precedent in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, clarifying that after hearing is completed, parties have no further privileges

Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC as interpreted in K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy [(2011) 11 SCC 275] and Shubhkaran Singh v. Abhayraj Singh, which establish that the power to recall witnesses is discretionary, intended for the court's clarification, and must not be used by parties to fill lacunae or introduce additional evidence that could have been produced earlier

The High Court determined that there is no procedural stage between the conclusion of arguments and the pronouncement of judgment that allows parties to lead new evidence as a matter of right

The court observed that the respondent had already examined three witnesses and voluntarily closed her evidence in a suit pending since 2018

It held that the respondent failed to demonstrate "due diligence," as the witness was available during the trial and no attempt was made to summon him before the judgment stage

The court reasoned that allowing a new witness at this late stage would permit the respondent to fill gaps in her case revealed during arguments, thereby causing significant prejudice to the petitioner

The court emphasized that Order XVIII Rule 17 is a tool for the court to resolve ambiguities, not for parties to reopen their entire case

The court concluded that the reasons provided by the respondent were insufficient to invoke inherent powers under Section 151 or discretionary powers under Order XVIII Rule 17

Consequently, the Writ Petition was allowed, the Family Court's order dated 14.10.2025 was quashed and set aside, and the respondent's application (Exhibit 73) was rejected