Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked to summon witnesses after closure of evidence.

The respondent filed a suit for recovery of ₹4,50,000 against the petitioner under Order XXXVII of the CPC

After being granted leave to defend, the petitioner submitted a witness list including one Jatinder Singh (Serial No. 6)

An initial application to summon this witness was rejected on 10.03.2020

Following multiple opportunities to lead evidence, the trial court closed the petitioner’s evidence on 24.11.2023, and the matter was set for final arguments

Subsequently, the petitioner filed a fresh application under Section 151 CPC to summon the same witness, which the Principal District Judge, Kulgam, dismissed on 05.08.2025, citing procedural delay and prior rejection

The petitioner challenged this dismissal under Article 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the trial court was justified in declining the request to summon a witness after the closure of evidence and when the case was set for final arguments

2. Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's discretionary order under the supervisory jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution

The Court applied Article 227 of the Constitution regarding supervisory jurisdiction, noting it is not an appellate power and should be used sparingly to correct patent illegality or jurisdictional errors

The court relied on Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd. v. Ram Tahel Ramnand, establishing that Article 227 is for keeping subordinate courts within bounds, not for correcting mere errors

The court relied on Koyilerian Janaki v. Rent Controller, stating the power is used only where grave error causes injustice

Procedurally, the court applied Section 151 of the CPC, ruling that inherent powers cannot circumvent specific procedural disciplines or be used to fill lacunae after evidence is closed

The Court reasoned that the petitioner had prior knowledge of the witness and had already been denied a similar request in 2020, yet failed to show any "due diligence" or change in circumstances to justify a fresh plea at the stage of final arguments

The Court observed that the CPC mandates parties to lead evidence within allotted timelines; allowing a witness to be summoned after the closure of evidence would reopen the entire defense, causing undue prejudice to the respondent and violating procedural discipline

The Court concluded that Section 151 CPC is intended to advance justice where the Code is silent, not to bypass consequences resulting from a party's failure to act

There was no "manifest perversity" found in the trial court's observation that the application was a tactic to protract proceedings

The Court held that there was no jurisdictional error or illegality warranting interference under Article 227

The application under Section 151 CPC was deemed an attempt to fill lacunae in the case at a belated stage, which is impermissible under the procedural framework of the CPC