Closure Of Evidence | Past Conduct Prior To Deposition Irrelevant For Deciding Plea To Adduce Further Evidence: Orissa High Court

"The Petitioner’s past conducts, prior to filing her affidavit evidence on 21.07.2026, should not have been taken into consideration to reject her petition dated 22.09.2026 and permit her to adduce further evidence. What would have been relevant is her conduct after closure of her evidence as RW No-1." Orissa High Court has ruled that a litigant's past conduct prior to the commencement or filing of evidence cannot be made the basis to shut out their right to lead further evidence.

Setting aside two orders of the Family Court that closed a wife's evidence and rejected her recall petition immediately after her counsel withdrew his vakalatnama, Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra held that trial courts must assess a litigant’s diligence only subsequent to the discharge of the examined witness rather than penalizing them for earlier procedural delays.

The petitioner-wife challenged orders dated September 11, 2026, and September 22, 2026, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in an ongoing matrimonial proceeding (CP No. 297 of 2021). After the wife was cross-examined and discharged as RW-1 on September 7, 2026, the matter was listed on September 11, 2026, on which date her counsel withdrew his vakalatnama, prompting the court to summarily close her evidence and schedule the case for final arguments. The Family Court subsequently dismissed her recall petition on September 22, 2026, citing past delays, and reserved the matter for judgment.

The primary question before the High Court was whether the Family Court was justified in closing the respondent-wife's evidence and dismissing her recall application by taking into consideration her past conduct prior to filing her affidavit evidence, instead of evaluating her post-discharge conduct.

Evaluation Of Diligence Must Focus On Post-Examination Stage

The High Court scrutinized the chronological progression of the trial and observed that the petitioner had entered the witness box as RW-1 by tendering her evidence on affidavit on July 21, 2026. Following multiple dates of extensive cross-examination spread across August and September, she was formally discharged on September 7, 2026. The matter was then posted for remaining respondent evidence after a narrow window of just three days, marked as a "last chance."

Family Court Erred By Considering Past Delays Before Evidence Commenced

Justice Mishra noted that on September 11, 2026, when the matter was called, the wife appeared in person while her engaged advocate filed a memo withdrawing his appearance. Rather than granting a reasonable accommodation to substitute counsel or tender remaining witness affidavits, the trial judge shut her evidence on the same day and posted the matter for arguments. When the wife filed a recall application along with disclosure statements, the Family Court dismissed it outright without even inviting an objection from the opposite party.

"The Petitioner’s past conducts, prior to filing her affidavit evidence on 21.07.2026, should not have been taken into consideration to reject her petition dated 22.09.2026 and permit her to adduce further evidence. What would have been relevant is her conduct after closure of her evidence as RW No-1."

Parties Directed To Co-operate For Expeditious Trial Without Undue Adjournments

The bench emphasized that procedural rigidity should not extinguish the substantive right to present relevant witness testimony, especially where the delay following the discharge of the primary witness was negligible. Taking note that the matrimonial proceeding had already seen earlier rounds of litigation before the High Court, the court held that balancing equity and expedition required granting the wife one final opportunity to produce her witnesses on terms of compensatory costs.

Conditional Relief Granted Subject To Costs And Time-Bound Schedule

Setting aside the orders dated September 11, 2026, and September 22, 2026, the High Court directed the Family Court, Bhubaneswar to fix a specific date immediately after the ensuing vacation for the petitioner-wife to file the evidence affidavits of all remaining witnesses. The bench cautioned that failure to produce the witnesses for cross-examination without cogent cause would leave the Family Court free to proceed strictly in accordance with law. The relief was made subject to the payment of costs amounting to Rs. 5,000 to the husband.

Allowing the writ petition, the High Court reiterated that a trial court evaluating an application to lead further evidence must evaluate diligence in the immediate procedural context rather than relying on historical delays predating the evidence stage. The Family Court was directed to conclude the matrimonial proceeding expeditiously, preferably by the end of December 2026.

Date of Decision: 14 October 2026