Further opportunity to adduce evidence may be denied absent sufficient reason for prior non-production.

In proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hatod, the petitioner’s right to adduce evidence had been closed.

On revision, he was granted one opportunity to produce evidence by order dated 24 January 2026, which he used. He then sought further time to produce additional evidence; the SDM refused that request on 5 March 2026, and the revisional court dismissed his challenge on 11 May 2026.

The petitioner invoked Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking to set aside those orders and obtain another opportunity to adduce evidence.

The State and respondent no. 2 opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner had offered no reason for failing to produce all his evidence during the opportunity already granted.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a further opportunity to adduce evidence after using the single opportunity granted by the revisional court.

2. Whether the SDM’s order refusing further time, as affirmed by the revisional court, suffered from illegality or perversity warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The petition was brought under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, which the Court considered in deciding whether to interfere with the challenged orders.

The Court applied the principle that a party who has received and availed an opportunity to adduce evidence is not entitled to a further opportunity absent a sufficient reason for failing to produce the evidence earlier.

The Court found it undisputed that the petitioner had received and availed the single opportunity granted by the revisional court, but later sought additional time to produce more evidence.

The record disclosed no sufficient reason for his failure to produce that evidence during the earlier opportunity. In those circumstances, the Court held that refusing further time was justified and that the challenged orders disclosed no illegality or perversity warranting interference.

Finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed it.