Forfeiture of evidence rights set aside where illness prevented appearance and defendants’ evidence had not commenced.

The petitioners were plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 76-A/2020, seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction concerning ancestral property.

After issues were framed, the matter was fixed for the plaintiffs’ evidence on 12 February 2026.

Petitioner No. 1, who was representing and conducting the case on behalf of the other plaintiffs, could not appear on several dates due to illness.

He subsequently fractured his left leg on 12 June 2026 and was advised bed rest.

On 10 August 2026, the petitioners sought an adjournment under Order XVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), but the Trial Court rejected the application and forfeited the plaintiffs’ right to lead evidence.

The petitioners challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution, contending that denial of an opportunity to lead evidence would prejudice their adjudication of property rights and that the defendants’ evidence had not yet commenced.

Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the petitioners’ application for adjournment under Order XVII Rule 1 CPC and forfeiting their right to lead evidence despite the pleaded illness and subsequent fracture of Petitioner No. 1?

Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the petitioners should be granted one further opportunity to examine themselves and their witnesses, subject to payment of costs?

The Court applied Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the High Court to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts to ensure that proceedings are conducted within the bounds of law and substantial justice.

It also considered Order XVII Rule 1 CPC, which governs the grant of adjournments.

The governing principle applied was that although parties are not entitled to repeated or unnecessary adjournments, a genuine and sufficiently explained inability to appear may justify granting a limited opportunity, particularly where the refusal would substantially prejudice adjudication on the merits.

The Court further imposed costs and directed that no unnecessary adjournment be granted thereafter.

The High Court acknowledged that the plaintiffs had already received opportunities to lead evidence.

However, it found that the reasons placed before the Trial Court were not attributable to negligence: Petitioner No. 1 had suffered illness on several dates and had thereafter fractured his left leg, requiring treatment and bed rest.

Since he was conducting the matter on behalf of the other plaintiffs, his absence materially affected their ability to present evidence.

The Court also considered that the defendants’ evidence had not yet commenced and that the plaintiffs had sought only one further opportunity.

In these circumstances, forfeiting the plaintiffs’ right to lead evidence was considered disproportionate and likely to prejudice determination of the property dispute on its merits.

The Court therefore exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to restore the opportunity, while balancing procedural discipline by directing payment of costs and prohibiting unnecessary adjournments.

The Trial Court was directed to permit the plaintiffs to examine themselves and their witnesses, subject to payment of ₹5,000 as costs to the defendants.

The Trial Court was further directed to fix a date for the plaintiffs’ evidence, not grant unnecessary adjournments, and preserve the defendants’ right to cross-examine the plaintiffs and their witnesses.