The Delhi High Court has observed that right to lead evidence is pivotal to a fair trial and therefore Courts shouldn't be hypertechnical in granting the opportunity to party unless they are indefensibly negligent.
The single-judge bench of Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order whereby the right of the petitioner to lead his evidence, as the defendant has been closed.
The petitioner moved an application under Section 151 CrPC which was dismissed and review was further rejected.
On Learned Counsel for the respondent's contention that the petitioner had been remiss on earlier occasions, the Court stated that the same couldn't be approved citing SC decision in State Bank of India Vs. Km. Chandra Govindji, 2000 Latest Caselaw 540 SC wherein it was held that where the refusal of the Court below to grant adjournment on a particular date was under challenge, adjournments granted earlier were irrelevant, as there was a presumption that they were granted for good reason.
The Court also took note of the Apex Court's decision to relax constraints on litigants caused due to Covid-19 pandemic in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, 2021 Latest Caselaw 125 SC whereby periods of limitation in all proceedings, irrespective of whether the limitation was prescribed under general or special laws, and irrespective of whether delay was, or was not, condonable would stand extended w.e.f. 15th March, 2020, till further orders to be passed by the Supreme Court.
In this view, it pointed out that till the date on which the right of the petitioner to lead defence evidence was closed i.e. till 16th November, 2021, the above order continued to remain in force.
The Court further analysed Counsel for the respondent's reliance on SAGUFA AHMED vs. UPPER ASSAM PLYWOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD, 2020 Latest Caselaw 518 SC.
It took note of the fact that in impugned order, the learned CJ has held that In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation is inapplicable to the facts of this case, as, according to him, the latitude granted by the Supreme Court was only in respect of statutory periods of limitation or periods of limitation fixed by the law for the time being in force, whereas the requirement of the petitioner filing its defence evidence on or before 22nd April, 2020 was not on account of any statutory period of limitation but because of an order passed by the Court.
The Court held the above as factually incorrect as 22nd April, 2020, being the date by which defence evidence was to be led by the petitioner as per the order dated 27th February, 2020, the COVID-2019 pandemic had already struck and the working of the Courts were in a state of limbo.
Noting that the first occasion when the Court functioned physically, after normal resumption of work was on 25th September, 2021 and the impugned order was passed on next hearing date, i.e. 16th November, 2021.
The Court opined that the learned CJ ought to have granted one more opportunity to the petitioner to lead defence evidence.
"The right to lead evidence is pivotal to a fair trial and partakes of the character of natural justice and fair play. No doubt, where a party is unconscionably indolent, the Court may put its foot down and close the right of the party to lead evidence; else, as adversarial litigations are meant to be tried after allowing the parties to an adequate opportunity to place their respective stands on record, the Court should not be hyper-technical, in the matter of granting opportunity to lead evidence and the like.'
The petition was thus allowed.
Read Order @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
