Acceptance of Document After Closure of Evidence Must Be Matched by Equal Right of Rebuttal: Orissa High Court Invokes Natural Justice

“It is very fundamental in civil law that, whenever any document is accepted by the Court at the instance of one party, it is natural and obvious for providing opportunity to other sides for adducing rebuttal evidence… only in order to comply the principles of natural justice.” — Justice A.C. Behera

Orissa High Court emphasizing that trial courts cannot admit documents at the stage of final arguments — after closure of evidence — without granting the other side the right to rebut. The Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, partially allowed the petition by the defendants and directed the trial court to provide them with an opportunity to rebut the belatedly introduced document.

The case reinforces that procedural fairness is not a technicality, but a substantive part of the right to be heard, flowing directly from the principle of audi alteram partem.

"You Cannot Ambush a Litigant With Late Evidence Without Offering a Right to Reply": Court Balances Order VII Rule 14(3) With Fairness

The controversy arose in C.S. No.127 of 2014 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar. The plaintiff, Purna Chandra Mahanta, submitted a certified copy of the Record of Rights (R.o.R.) at the stage of final arguments — long after both parties had closed their evidence. The Trial Court accepted the document and marked it as Exhibit-25, without giving the defendants any opportunity to respond.

Challenging this procedural irregularity, the defendants filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 before the Orissa High Court, arguing that this acceptance without granting the right to rebut violated their right to a fair trial. The petitioners contended that the trial court, while marking the R.o.R. as an exhibit, denied them the basic procedural safeguard to counter it through rebuttal evidence.

The plaintiff’s side, through senior counsel Mr. B. Bhuyan, defended the Trial Court's action by asserting that the document in question was a certified copy of a public document, and thus admissible even at a late stage under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It was argued that this was necessary to show that the area purchased by the defendants had undergone reduction after mutation, and that the court was well within its jurisdiction to allow the document to be marked.

Procedural Accommodation Must Not Eclipse Fairness

Justice A.C. Behera acknowledged the validity of Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC, which permits filing of documents even after institution of the suit, but placed a strong emphasis on the principles of natural justice as the overarching consideration. The Court observed:

“It is very fundamental in civil law that, whenever any document is accepted by the Court at the instance of one party, it is natural and obvious for providing opportunity to other sides for adducing rebuttal evidence… only in order to comply the principles of natural justice.”

While the Court refused to set aside the acceptance of the R.o.R. and left the Trial Court’s order dated 31.10.2019 “intact in all respects,” it partially allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition by directing that the petitioners (defendants) be given liberty to adduce rebuttal evidence against the impugned document, i.e., Exhibit-25. The Trial Court was further directed to dispose of the suit within three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment.

“Right to Rebut is Not a Charity—It is a Constitutional Compulsion”: High Court Protects Equilibrium of Civil Procedure

This judgment strikes a careful balance between procedural discretion under the CPC and the non-negotiable constitutional requirement of fair hearing. While it did not interfere with the Trial Court’s discretion to accept late-stage evidence, it placed an equally strong obligation on the court to restore procedural equilibrium by affording the opposing party a right to respond.

The Court firmly rejected the idea that admissibility of a document—especially a public one—could override the defendant’s right to challenge its effect, noting that such an approach would amount to procedural ambush.

By directing the Trial Court to reopen the window for rebuttal evidence, the Orissa High Court preserved both judicial efficiency and litigant fairness, without nullifying the Trial Court’s discretion under the CPC.

The Civil Miscellaneous Petition thus stood disposed of finally, with all interim orders automatically rendered infructuous.

Date of Decision: 16.09.2025