Court Dismisses Petition
The Gauhati High Court plaintiff evidence ruling dismissed a petition challenging the trial court’s decision to close the plaintiffs’ evidence after repeated adjournments. The Court also upheld the orders rejecting the plaintiffs’ request to file evidence-on-affidavit at a later stage. It held that the petitioners failed to show any exceptional circumstance warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer delivered the judgment on June 17, 2026, in CRP(IO)/291/2025.
Background of the Dispute
The legal heirs of late Sayed Maqsud Ahmed—Mumtaz Begum, Dil Nawaz Ahmed, and Nazrin Sultaana—filed the petition against Khurshid Ali Ahmed.
The original plaintiff had instituted Title Suit No. 88/2019 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dibrugarh. He sought a declaration that Sale Deed No. 1041 dated May 4, 2017 was executed after the defendant allegedly took advantage of his poor health and mental condition.
After Sayed Maqsud Ahmed passed away on May 17, 2021, the court substituted his legal heirs as plaintiffs. The respondent is also the deceased’s son.
The petition challenged four trial court orders. These included the September 21, 2024 order closing the plaintiffs’ evidence, the December 5, 2024 order rejecting their request to file evidence, and the orders dated March 3, 2025 and May 23, 2025 fixing the matter for final arguments.
Petitioners’ Arguments
Senior Advocate N.N. Upadhyaya argued that the plaintiffs’ previous counsel had returned the case records through a no-objection letter dated September 20, 2024.
According to the petitioners, they could not engage a new advocate before the matter came up on September 21, 2024 for filing evidence.
They also claimed that they believed their previous counsel was handling the case properly. They pointed out that Plaintiff No.1 lived outside Dibrugarh, Plaintiff No.2 was elderly, and Plaintiff No.3 suffered from depression.
The petitioners argued that these circumstances, rather than negligence, caused the delay.
To support their case, they relied on Ram Pal & Ors. v. Dhan Singh Nawasa Likhi & Anr., a Gauhati High Court judgment in RFA No. 26/2012, and another Gauhati High Court decision in CRP No. 332/2013.
They submitted that courts had previously allowed parties to produce evidence after delays caused by communication gaps with counsel.
Respondent’s Stand
Counsel K. Jain opposed the petition.
He argued that the plaintiffs could not shift responsibility for prosecuting their own case onto their advocate.
He submitted that the trial court had already granted several opportunities to file evidence-on-affidavit, but the plaintiffs repeatedly failed to act.
The respondent also argued that reopening evidence would unnecessarily delay a suit pending since 2019.
He relied on Rajneesh Kumar v. Ved Prakash (2024), Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal, Kartik Sena Singha v. Debashis Chakraborty, and MD Eushoof Ali v. Smti Halima Khatoon.
He emphasized the Supreme Court’s observations that repeated adjournments weaken public confidence in timely justice.
High Court’s Findings
Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer examined the records and found that the trial court had granted the plaintiffs 11 adjournments between December 2022 and September 2024.
The Court observed that trial courts have discretion to permit delayed evidence. However, they must exercise that discretion cautiously when parties repeatedly fail to comply with court directions.
The Bench held that the plaintiffs could not claim a right to file evidence after ignoring multiple opportunities.
The Court also examined whether the plaintiffs had shown negligence, abuse of process, or deliberate delay.
It distinguished the judgments cited by the petitioners and held that those decisions arose from different factual situations.
Reopening Evidence Would Delay the Suit
The Court found that the plaintiffs had failed to establish any exceptional reason for not filing their examination-in-chief despite receiving eleven opportunities.
It noted that the suit had remained pending since 2019 and had already reached the stage of final arguments.
The Bench concluded that reopening evidence would only prolong the proceedings without advancing the interests of justice.
Petition Dismissed
The High Court dismissed CRP(IO)/291/2025 and refused to interfere with the trial court’s orders.
It upheld the decisions closing the plaintiffs’ evidence, rejecting their request to reopen evidence, and proceeding with the suit at the stage of final arguments.
The Gauhati High Court plaintiff evidence ruling reiterates that litigants cannot expect unlimited opportunities to file evidence. Courts may refuse further adjournments when parties repeatedly fail to act without showing exceptional circumstances.
