Gauhati HC Dismisses Petition After 11 Adjournments for Filing Evidence [Read Order]

The Gauhati High Court refused to permit a party to file affidavit of evidence on noting that they had taken 11 adjournments, observing that though courts have the discretion to permit filing of evidence after delay, such discretion has to be exercised strictly where repeated adjournments have been granted.

Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer of the Gauhati High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed challenging a series of orders passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dibrugarh, closing their evidence and rejecting their application to restore the opportunity to file witness affidavits.

The petitioners widow Mumtaz Begum, son Dil Nawaz Ahmed, and daughter Nazrin Sultaana were substituted as plaintiffs after the original plaintiff and their father, Sayed Maqsud Ahmed, passed away on during the pendency of Title Suit No. 88/2019. The suit had been filed seeking a declaration that the respondent, Khurshid Ali Ahmed, another son of the deceased, had obtained sale deed No. 1041, dated 04-05-2017, by taking advantage of the poor health and mental condition of the deceased.

The matter came before the High Court through a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging four orders of the trial court: the order dated 21-09-2024 debarring the petitioners from filing evidence and closing the evidence of Plaintiff Witnesses; the order dated 05-12-2024 rejecting their restoration petition under Section 151 CPC; and the orders dated 03-03-2025 and 23-05-2025 fixing the case for arguments.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the previous advocate had returned the briefs by a no-objection letter dated 20-09-2024, and that on 21-09-2024, when the matter was taken up for PWs, the petitioners could not engage a new counsel at such short notice. A new counsel was engaged only on 04-12-2024. It was further contended that plaintiff No. 1 did not reside in Dibrugarh, plaintiff No. 2 was aged 70 years, and plaintiff No. 3 was suffering from depression, and that the failure to file evidence was neither intentional nor deliberate. Reliance was placed on judgments of coordinate benches of the Gauhati High Court in RFA No. 26/2012 and CRP No. 332/2013, and of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ram Pal & Ors. vs. Dhan Singh Nawasa Likhi & Anr. (CR No. 6523 of 2018), where parties had been allowed to adduce evidence subject to payment of costs despite delays arising from a communication gap between counsel and client.

Counsel for the respondent countered that the petitioners had been granted as many as 11 adjournments by the trial court between 2022 and 2024, and that the plaintiff, being the dominus litis, could not shift the burden of his own negligence onto the engaged counsel. It was submitted that the petitioners had not approached the court with clean hands and that the suit, already pending since 2019, was now at the stage of arguments. Reliance was placed on Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. vs. Ved Prakash (2024 INSC 891), Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs. Gopal & Ors. (SLP (Civil) Nos. 14117-14118 of 2021), Kartik Sena Singha vs. Debashis Chakraborty & Anr. (2019:GAU-AS:37), and MD Eushoof Ali vs. Smti Halima Khatoon & Ors. (2025:GAU-AS:13461).

The court noted that the trial court had granted 11 adjournments to the petitioners on 14-12-2022, 28-02-2023, 04-05-2023, 05-07-2023, 19-09-2023, 01-12-2023, 08-01-2024, 23-02-2024, 07-05-2024, 17-05-2024, and 06-07-2024 before finally closing the evidence on 21-09-2024.

The court observed, “No doubt, the trial court as well as this Court has the discretion to allow the plaintiffs to file their evidence even after a long period of delay. However, that discretion needs to be exercised more strictly when there has been repeated adjournments and as in the present case, it is found that there has been 11 adjournments made by the plaintiffs/petitioners.”

The court held that the petitioners could not be allowed to file their evidence-on-affidavit as a matter of right at that belated stage. It further held that no exceptional cause had been shown for the delay, noting that it was "surprising" that even after 11 adjournments over a span of two years, the evidence-in-chief of the PWs had not been filed in a suit originating in 2019. The court concluded that allowing the petition would not serve the interests of justice and would only prolong the pendency of Title Suit No. 88/2019.

The instant petition was accordingly dismissed.

For the Petitioners: Mr. N.N. Upadhyaya, Mr. B.B. Kakati, Mr. V. Pandey, Mr. D.K. Bagchi, Advocates

For the Respondent: Mr. A. Pareek, Mr. Kaushik Jain, Advocates 

Case Title: On the Death of Sayed Maqsud Ahmed, His Legal Heirs Namely Mumtaz Begum & Ors. vs. Khurshid Ali Ahmed (CRP(IO)/291/2025)

[Read Order]