Subsequent documents may be taken on record solely for final arguments, without reopening evidence.

The petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking recovery of possession and damages concerning property No. A-123, Phase-I, Aya Nagar, New Delhi.

The suit, CS DJ 7839/2016, was pending before the District Judge-06, South District, Saket Courts, and had reached the stage of final arguments.

The petitioner sought, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), to place certain documents on record, including cross-examinations of official witnesses recorded in a connected criminal case, a subsequent acquittal judgment, and revenue/administrative documents.

The Trial Court dismissed the application on 4 April 2026, principally holding that the suit had been pending for nearly ten years, that the documents were sought to be introduced at the stage of final arguments, and that the petitioner had not sufficiently explained their relevance.

The petitioner invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

During the hearing, the respondent consented to the taking on record of four specified documents for the limited purpose of advancing final arguments, while objecting to the map/naksha and khasra girdawari documents.

Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution with the Trial Court’s order refusing to take the petitioner’s documents on record under Section 151 CPC?

Whether the four specified documents could be taken on record and considered solely for the purpose of advancing final arguments, without permitting further evidence or reopening of the trial?

The Court considered the petitioner’s application under Section 151 CPC, which preserves the civil court’s inherent power to make orders necessary for the ends of justice, and exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, which permits the High Court to ensure that subordinate courts act within the bounds of their jurisdiction.

The Court also applied the procedural principle that documents may, in appropriate circumstances and particularly with the parties’ consent, be taken on record subject to a defined and limited use, without permitting the reopening of concluded evidence or the introduction of a fresh evidentiary stage.

The High Court noted that the Trial Court had rejected the documents because they were sought to be introduced after prolonged proceedings and at the stage of final arguments, and because their relevance had not been adequately demonstrated.

However, the dispute before the High Court was narrowed by the respondent’s consent to the filing of four documents for the limited purpose of final arguments.

In light of the limited relief sought and the parties’ agreement, the Court considered it appropriate to set aside the impugned order, while recording the petitioner’s undertaking that the documents would not be used to lead further evidence or reopen evidence already concluded.

The Court therefore balanced procedural finality with the limited use of subsequent and potentially relevant documents by imposing express restrictions on their consideration.

The order dated 4 April 2026 was set aside, subject to the petitioner paying costs of ₹10,000 to the Delhi High Court Bar Association.

The Trial Court was directed to take on record only the following documents: the cross-examinations of PW-14 and PW-11, the status report dated 10 May 2025 issued on behalf of the Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate, Mehrauli, and the criminal court’s judgment dated 23 September 2025 acquitting the petitioner.

These documents could be considered strictly for hearing and adjudicating final arguments; the petitioner was barred from adducing further evidence or reopening concluded evidence on their basis.

Pending applications were disposed of, and the previously fixed date of 2 September 2026 was cancelled.