Trial Court’s closure of defendant’s evidence set aside to ensure justice amid pending collateral proceedings.

The petitioners (defendants in the original suit) filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 19.06.2026 passed by the Trial Court in RCS (A) No. 12/2016.

The Trial Court had closed the petitioners' right to lead evidence after they failed to produce witnesses despite multiple opportunities.

The petitioners sought to re-open this right to examine two additional witnesses.

Conversely, the respondent (plaintiff) argued that the petitioners were negligent and that their application before the Trial Court only specified one witness.

Notably, a related petition (M.P. No. 4358 of 2025) filed by the respondent regarding the plaintiff’s right to lead evidence was still pending, with interim orders staying the closure of the plaintiff’s evidence.

1. Whether the Trial Court’s order closing the defendants' right to lead evidence should be set aside to subserve the interests of justice given the pendency of related proceedings.

2. Whether the petitioners' negligence in availing prior opportunities warrants the imposition of costs as a condition for re-opening their right to lead evidence.

The Court primarily considered the procedural framework of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the sequence of recording evidence, where the plaintiff’s evidence generally precedes the defendant’s.

It further referenced the principles of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (formerly the Indian Evidence Act) concerning the examination of witnesses.

The Court exercised its discretionary supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure "the interest of justice" by granting a final opportunity to a party despite prior negligence.

The Court observed that while the petitioners were negligent in failing to lead evidence despite "ample opportunity" and "last opportunity" warnings, the broader procedural context was significant.

Specifically, since the original plaintiff (respondent) had a pending Miscellaneous Petition regarding their own right to examine further witnesses, the trial was not yet at a stage where allowing the defendants a final chance would cause irreparable prejudice.

The Court noted the Trial Court had already granted liberty to the defendants to rebut any future evidence led by the plaintiff; however, to ensure a fair trial, the Court determined that one final, time-bound opportunity should be granted.

To balance the equities and address the petitioners’ past delays, the Court found it necessary to impose a financial penalty.

It held that the petitioners be granted one final opportunity to examine their witness(es) on the next date of hearing, subject to the payment of costs totaling Rs. 25,000 (Rs. 15,000 to the respondent and Rs. 10,000 to the High Court Bar Association, Indore).

The Trial Court was directed to resolve the dispute regarding the number of witnesses (one vs. two) and permit the examination accordingly.

Failure to avail of this final opportunity will result in the forfeiture of the right.