Gujarat HC Reopens Plaintiff’s Oral Evidence After Plea Filed 20 Days After Closure, Barred From Seeking Unnecessary Adjournments

The petitioner, plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 49 of 2022, had her right to lead oral evidence closed on 15 April 2026.

She applied below Exhibit 23 to reopen that right; the Trial Court rejected the application by order dated 5 May 2026.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227, submitting that the delay was not due to gross negligence and that the change of power of attorney had contributed to the circumstances.

The respondent opposed the petition, arguing that the plaintiff had been given reasonable opportunities and had delayed the trial.

The petitioner had deposited ₹15,000 as costs pursuant to an interim direction of the High Court.

Article 227 of the Constitution of India empowers the High Court to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.

The Court applied the principle that procedural rules are handmaids of justice and should not obstruct substantial justice where the procedural default does not cause serious prejudice to the opposing party.

It relied on Sugandhi (Dead) by LRs v. P. Rajkumar, (2020) 10 SCC 706, which states that courts should prefer substantial justice over procedural or technical compliance where appropriate.

The Court accepted that the plaintiff was responsible for ensuring the suit was not delayed, but found no gross negligence or mala fides indicating an attempt to prolong the trial.

The application to reopen the evidence right was filed within a short time after that right was closed, supporting the conclusion that the plaintiff intended to participate in the proceedings.

Applying the preference for substantial justice, the Court held that the Trial Court had taken an unduly technical approach and that any prejudice to the respondent could be addressed through costs and conditions requiring the petitioner to proceed without unnecessary adjournments.

The respondent may withdraw the ₹15,000 deposited with the High Court.

The petitioner must participate without delay and must not seek unnecessary adjournments; if she attempts to delay the trial, the respondent may apply to the Trial Court to close her right to lead evidence or cross-examine, for decision in accordance with law.

The petition was partly allowed and the Rule made absolute to that extent.