Production of title documents at the final argument stage is permissible to counter first-time challenges to ownership.

The petitioner (original plaintiff) filed a suit (Regular Civil Suit No. 234 of 2020) for possession of suit properties bearing City Survey Nos. 206 and 207, alleging that respondent No. 1 is an unauthorized sub-tenant.

In their written arguments, the defendants raised a new contention questioning the plaintiff’s title and alleging non-joinder of necessary parties, noting that the plaintiff’s name did not appear on the property cards.

To counter this, the plaintiff moved an application (Exhibit-68) to reopen the evidence stage to produce a registered release deed from 2008 as proof of title.

The Trial Court dismissed the application on April 13, 2026, holding it was an attempt to fill a "lacuna".

The petitioner challenged this order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting an application to produce title documents at the stage of final arguments when the challenge to the plaintiff’s title was raised for the first time in written submissions.

2. Whether the production of a pre-existing registered document to rebut a technical plea raised at the fag end of trial amounts to filling a lacuna in the case.

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The primary legal principle applied is that the power to permit additional evidence should be exercised in the interest of justice, particularly when a party seeks to meet a new contention not specifically pleaded in the written statement.

The court distinguished between "filling a lacuna" (improving a weak case) and "rebutting a technical challenge" raised at the final stage to prevent a party from being non-suited on technicalities.

The High Court observed that the defendants did not specifically question the plaintiff’s title in their written statement, nor did the Trial Court frame any issue regarding the proof of title.

The court reasoned that since the defendants raised the issue of ownership and property card entries only during final arguments, the plaintiff must be given an opportunity to prima facie establish ownership to avoid being unfairly non-suited.

The court rejected the Trial Court's finding that this was an attempt to fill a lacuna, noting that because the title was not previously contested, there was no "gap" in the initial evidence that the plaintiff was duty-bound to fill earlier.

Allowing the production of the 2008 registered Release Deed was deemed necessary to meet the ends of justice.

It quashed and set aside the Order dated April 13, 2026, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Una, below Exhibit-68 and directed that the application be allowed for the limited purpose of the production of the documentary evidence.