Case Note & Summary
The present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 arises from the rejection of an application at Exh. 20 in Regular Civil Suit No. 239 of 2018 pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Gandhinagar. The plaintiff, Rajeshkumar Navnitlal Mehta, filed the suit against the defendants, Bhikhiben and others, seeking redemption of mortgage, partition by metes and bounds, and declaration that a sale deed dated 15.06.1987 was illegal and forged. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application to produce additional evidence, which was rejected by the trial court solely on the ground of delay. The High Court, after hearing the parties, observed that the trial court had not considered the relevance of the documents sought to be produced. The court noted that additional evidence can be permitted at any stage if it is necessary for just adjudication. The impugned order, if allowed to stand, would cause failure of justice and irreparable injury to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 05.03.2026, and directed the trial court to permit the plaintiff to lead additional evidence subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the defendants. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the disposal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Additional Evidence - Section 115 CPC - The trial court rejected the plaintiff's application to produce additional evidence at Exh. 20 solely on the ground of delay. The High Court held that additional evidence can be permitted at any stage if it is relevant for just adjudication of the suit. The court set aside the order and allowed the application, directing the trial court to permit the plaintiff to lead additional evidence subject to payment of costs. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Revision - Section 115 CPC - The High Court held that the impugned order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice and cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff, as it would deprive the plaintiff of the opportunity to prove crucial documents. Therefore, the revision was maintainable and the order was set aside. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application at Exh. 20 filed by the plaintiff to produce additional evidence in Regular Civil Suit No. 239 of 2018, and whether such rejection warrants interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Application, set aside the order dated 05.03.2026 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar below Exh. 20 in Regular Civil Suit No. 239 of 2018, and directed the trial court to permit the plaintiff to lead additional evidence subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the defendants. The trial court was also directed to expedite the disposal of the suit.
Law Points
- Additional evidence can be permitted at any stage if relevant for just adjudication
- Rejection of application to produce additional evidence solely on ground of delay is improper
- Section 115 CPC revision lies against interlocutory orders if they cause failure of justice or irreparable injury
