The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court’s decision denying the filing of replication in a civil suit while observing that a plaintiff does not have an inherent right to file replication once the trial has commenced. The Court emphasized that procedural timelines and prior opportunities to lead evidence are crucial to maintaining the integrity and efficiency of judicial proceedings.
The petitioner challenged an order of the trial court dated July 23, 2025, which denied his application to file a replication. The Trial Court had also granted the petitioner a single opportunity to lead evidence, subject to payment of costs, citing that the testimony of the first witness had already begun and previous time-bound directions were issued by the High Court for disposal of the matter. On the date in question, the petitioner failed to appear in court despite repeated calls, prompting the trial court to adjourn and set conditions for further proceedings.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the trial court’s denial of replication was unsustainable. He argued that the petitioner had been connected via videoconferencing but could not be heard due to connectivity issues and had subsequently sent an associate to the Trial Court. The counsel maintained that the petitioner’s right to file replication was being arbitrarily curtailed.
The High Court noted that the petitioner had been provided a last opportunity to address pending applications, including the recall of an earlier order and permission to file replication, yet failed to appear. The Court highlighted the trial court’s reasoning that replication was sought after the commencement of evidence of PW1, and procedural timelines could not be reversed.
The bench observed, “Once the trial has commenced, there is no scope of accepting replication, which in any case ought to have been filed prior to framing of issues. The Civil Procedure Code does not contemplate a right to file replication, though judicial practice may allow it once taken on record. No right is vested in the plaintiff to file replication.”
The Court also clarified that the grievance regarding leading evidence was resolved, as the petitioner was granted a single opportunity subject to cost payment, which had been complied with.
The Court found no infirmity in the Trial Court’s order and upheld it. Consequently, the petition challenging the denial of replication and the pending applications were dismissed.
Case Title: Dinesh Kumar Verma vs. Ramesh Ghai
Case No.: CM(M) 1787/2025, CM APPL. 57639/2025 & 57640/2025
Coram: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Yashaswi SK Chocksey
Advocate for Respondent: Respondent in person
Picture Source :
