Plaintiffs Cannot Adduce Evidence As A Matter Of Right At Belated Stage After Multiple Adjournments: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court, in a significant ruling, held that plaintiffs cannot be permitted to file their evidence-on-affidavit as a matter of right at a belated stage, especially after being granted as many as 11 adjournments by the trial court. A bench of Justice Yarenjungla Longkumar observed that while trial courts possess the discretion to allow evidence even after a long period of delay, such discretion must be exercised strictly in cases involving repeated failures to comply with court directions.

The petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the original plaintiff in Title Suit No. 88/2019, had approached the High Court challenging the orders of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dibrugarh. The Trial Court had closed the plaintiffs' evidence and debarred them from filing further affidavits after they failed to produce their witnesses (PWs) despite multiple opportunities spanning over two years.

The primary question before the court was whether the Trial Court was justified in closing the plaintiffs' evidence after granting eleven adjournments. The court also examined whether a change of counsel or an alleged communication gap between the litigants and their advocate could be considered an "exceptional cause" to condone a delay that resulted in the suit remaining stagnant at the evidence stage since 2022.

Discretion To Condone Delay Must Be Exercised Strictly In Case Of Repeated Adjournments

Upon perusing the case records, the Court noted that the Trial Court had been exceptionally lenient, granting adjournments on eleven separate dates between December 2022 and September 2024. The bench emphasized that while procedural laws are handmaids of justice, they cannot be used to reward negligence.

The Court observed that the Trial Court had strictly directed the plaintiffs to file their evidence by a certain date, yet they continued to seek adjournments. The bench noted that such discretion to allow belated evidence "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."

Litigants Cannot Shift Burden Of Negligence Onto Counsel

The petitioners argued that they were unaware their evidence had not been filed as they believed their previous advocate was managing the case diligently. They further claimed that they only realized the situation after engaging a new counsel in December 2024. The Court, however, flatly rejected the attempt to shift the entire blame onto the legal counsel.

The bench held that a plaintiff must be vigilant about their own case and cannot simply shift the burden of negligence onto the shoulders of the engaged counsel. The Court remarked that engaging a new counsel cannot be treated as a valid ground to condone delays caused by a party's own lack of diligence in pursuing the litigation.

Mounting Arrears In Justice Delivery System Due To Dilatory Tactics

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs. Gopal & Ors, the Court highlighted the systemic impact of repeated adjournments. It noted that the justice delivery system is burdened by mounting arrears specifically because of dilatory tactics and the mechanical granting of adjournments by trial courts.

The Court expressed surprise that in a suit filed in 2019, the evidence-in-chief of the plaintiffs had not been filed even by 2024. The bench observed that "due to the delay in access to justice and not getting the timely justice, it may shake the trust and confidence of the litigants in the justice delivery system."

No Exceptional Cause Shown To Reopen Evidence At Argument Stage

The bench found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any "exceptional cause" that prevented them from filing their evidence for nearly two years. It noted that the suit had already reached the stage of arguments, and allowing the petition at this juncture would only serve to further prolong the pendency of the 2019 litigation.

The Court concluded that each case must be decided on its own merits, and in this instance, the conduct of the plaintiffs suggested a deliberate attempt to prolong the suit or, at the very least, gross negligence. Consequently, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the Trial Court's orders.

Date of Decision: June 17, 2026