P&H HC Rejects Second Bid For Expert Evidence On Alleged Family Settlement, Citing Final Earlier Rejection And No New Justification

The respondent-plaintiff sued for a declaration of her entitlement to execution of a sale deed based on an alleged family settlement dated 29 January 2013.

The petitioner-defendant disputed the settlement and maintained that the plaintiff bore the burden of proving it.

After the parties had concluded their evidence, the plaintiff’s application to examine a document and handwriting expert in rebuttal was dismissed on 13 April 2023; that order was not challenged.

The Trial Court later allowed the plaintiff’s application to lead additional evidence by order dated 13 February 2024.

The defendant challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court may interfere where a subordinate court’s order suffers from patent illegality or material irregularity.

The Court applied the principles that judicial orders attain finality and that res judicata may apply at successive stages of the same proceedings; a party cannot circumvent an earlier refusal of rebuttal evidence by seeking substantially the same relief as additional evidence, particularly to fill gaps in its case.

Additional evidence requires satisfactory justification and demonstrable due diligence, especially where the party had an adequate opportunity to produce it earlier.

The Court relied on Surinder Saini v. Simmi Saini, Gurcharan Singh v. Sukhmander Singh, and Ajay Singh Chaudhary v. Shiv Raj Singh (Now Deceased).

The plaintiff’s proposed expert evidence concerned proof of the family settlement, which she had been required to establish from the outset.

The earlier order had denied substantially the same evidence, was left unchallenged, and had attained finality.

The later application disclosed no change in circumstances, newly discovered material, or explanation for not producing the evidence during the plaintiff’s affirmative evidence.

The Trial Court failed to account for the effect of its earlier order; allowing the successive application therefore enabled the plaintiff to circumvent that order.

The High Court found this to be a patent illegality and material irregularity warranting supervisory intervention.

It clarified that its observations were confined to the present proceedings and did not determine the merits of the underlying suit.