Persistent negligence and unexplained delay in leading evidence preclude the reopening of a closed evidentiary stage.

The petitioner (defendant in the original suit, CS SCJ 1278/2021) challenged an order dated February 12, 2026, passed by the Trial Court.

By this order, the Trial Court dismissed the petitioner’s application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which sought to recall a previous order dated January 21, 2025, that had closed the petitioner’s right to lead Defence Evidence (DE).

The matter had been pending at the DE stage since March 2024.

Although the petitioner claimed to have filed an evidence affidavit online in July 2024, no physical copies were submitted, and the petitioner failed to appear for the purpose of leading DE on multiple subsequent dates.

Consequently, the Trial Court closed the DE and proceeded to final arguments, which were heard in July 2025.

The petitioner filed the recall application on September 11, 2025, approximately seven months after the DE was closed.

1. Whether the Trial Court acted with material irregularity or illegality in dismissing the application under Section 151 CPC to recall the order closing the right to lead defence evidence.

2. Whether the petitioner’s conduct and the seven-month delay in filing the recall application justified the Trial Court's refusal to grant further opportunity to lead evidence.

Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, which governs the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.

Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the inherent powers of the court to pass orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.

The court relied on the principle that procedural leniency is not a matter of right and cannot be granted where a party exhibits "blatant neglect" or uses litigation tactics to intentionally delay trial proceedings.

The High Court scrutinized the trial history, noting that the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunities to lead evidence over the course of a year but consistently sought adjournments.

The court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the Trial Court's order was based on "surmises and conjectures".

The Court highlighted that even if the petitioner’s claim of filing an online affidavit were accepted, the failure to file physical copies and the non-appearance for examination between July 2024 and January 2025 remained "inexcusable".

The court emphasized the unexplained seven-month delay in filing the Section 151 application, which was only moved after the suit had reached the stage of final arguments.

The Court reasoned that reopening the evidence stage at such a late juncture, following a history of non-compliance, would facilitate the petitioner’s intent to delay the trial.

The court affirmed that the petitioner’s application was "vexatious and frivolous" and intended solely to delay the proceedings.

Accordingly, the petition under Article 227 was dismissed, the Trial Court’s order—including the imposition of costs of Rs. 2,000/—was upheld, and all pending applications were disposed of.