Specific-Performance Plaintiff’s Bid To Add Financial Records During Final Arguments Fails; Gujarat HC Upholds Rejection

The petitioner, who had brought Special Civil Suit No. 499 of 2014 seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell, applied at the final-hearing stage to place financial documents on record.

He said the documents would demonstrate his readiness and willingness to discharge obligations that his vendor, defendant No. 2, had not performed.

The trial court rejected the application, finding it belated and that it would reopen the evidence and prejudice the original owner.

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

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction is exercised sparingly; interference is warranted where the impugned order is perverse, contrary to settled legal principles, or affected by an egregious error, and not merely because another view is possible (*Sameer Suresh Gupta v. Rahul Kumar Agarwal* and *M/s Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel*)

Although procedural rules are handmaids of justice and a matter should not be rejected on hyper-technical grounds, applications to reopen evidence or introduce further material after adequate opportunity has been afforded require justifiable and compelling reasons; courts should avoid unnecessary reopening that may delay proceedings or fill evidentiary lacunae (*Bagai Construction*, as quoted in *Ashish Kantibhai Pithva*)

The Court considered the petitioner’s cited decisions, *Sugandhi (Dead) by LRs v. P. Rajkumar* and *Levaku Pedda Reddamma v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma*, but held them inapplicable to these facts

The petitioner knew that his vendor had not come forward to give evidence, yet did not seek to establish at the relevant time that he was ready and willing to perform the vendor’s obligations; he offered no reasonable explanation for waiting until after completion of the trial to apply

Allowing the application would require further evidence at the final-hearing stage, risk prejudice to the original owner, and permit the petitioner to fill a gap in his evidence

The trial court had also afforded opportunities for final hearing, and the petitioner’s history of applications and withdrawn petitions supported the concern that the proceedings were being delayed

The High Court therefore found no perversity or gross error warranting supervisory intervention

It held that the trial court had correctly rejected the late application and that no ground for interference under Article 227 was established.

The petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs