Litigant Should Not Suffer For Counsel’s Illness: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Closing Evidence

"A litigant should not be made to suffer on account of the illness of his counsel or any bona fide lapse on the part of the engaged counsel." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a recent ruling dated September 21, 2026, underscored the principles of natural justice by holding that the closure of evidence due to a counsel's medical incapacity constitutes a reversible error.

A bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa observed that procedural rigidity must yield to the interests of justice when a litigant demonstrates that the failure to lead evidence was neither intentional nor deliberate.

The matter originated from a rent petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The petitioner’s evidence was closed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, on May 27, 2026, following a series of missed opportunities. A subsequent application to recall this order was dismissed, leading the petitioner to approach the High Court via a revision petition.

The court was primarily called upon to determine whether the Rent Controller was justified in refusing to recall the order of evidence closure despite evidence of the petitioner's counsel having suffered from a severe neurological ailment during the relevant period. The court further examined the extent to which a party can be held vicariously responsible for the professional incapacity of their legal representative.

Justice Over Procedural Rigidity

The High Court observed that the medical records presented, including the discharge summary of the petitioner’s counsel, sufficiently established a bona fide reason for the delay in proceedings. The court noted that the petitioner could not be faulted for the counsel’s medical emergency, which rendered the counsel unable to represent the client or manage the court’s calendar between November 2025 and March 2026.

"It cannot be held that the petitioner failed to lead his evidence on the date fixed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, intentionally or deliberately."

Protection Against Counsel’s Lapses

The bench emphasized that the judiciary must distinguish between a calculated attempt to delay proceedings and a genuine lapse stemming from unforeseen personal circumstances. By prioritizing the adjudication of the merits of the case over the mechanical enforcement of trial timelines, the court reaffirmed that procedural rules are handmaids of justice rather than tools to foreclose a party's right to prove their case.

The Court allowed the revision petition and set aside both the order dated August 19, 2026, and the initial order of May 27, 2026. The Rent Controller was directed to provide the petitioner with two effective opportunities to conclude their evidence. This relief was made subject to the payment of Rs. 5,000 as costs to the respondent, with the caveat that no further adjournments would be permitted beyond these two opportunities.

Date of Decision: 21 September 2026