Where a party seeks to reopen evidence and produce additional documents after an inordinate delay without providing satisfactory explanation and without laying foundational pleadings in the plaint, the trial court is justified in rejecting such applications. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court will not interfere with such discretionary and reasoned orders unless they are shown to be arbitrary or perverse.

advocatemmmohan

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XVIII Rule 17 – Reopening of evidence – Discretionary power – Application filed after three years of closure of evidence – No satisfactory explanation – Rejection justified – Para 3, 6–7

Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC – Production of documents not filed with plaint – Requirement of due diligence and foundation in pleadings – Absence thereof – Application liable to be dismissed – Para 6

Section 151 CPC – Inherent powers – Cannot be invoked to fill lacunae in evidence after long delay – Para 3, 6

Article 227 Constitution of India – Supervisory jurisdiction – No interference with reasoned discretionary order unless arbitrary or perverse – Para 7

---

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

• Petitioners filed O.S. No.25 of 2015 seeking declaration and consequential injunction over Ac.20.76 cents in Sy.No.335/4C2, Pondugula Village, Guntur District.

• Evidence of plaintiffs (PWs.1–4) closed on 14.02.2019.

• After lapse of approximately three years, petitioners filed:

  • I.A. for reopening evidence (Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC),

  • I.A. for receiving certified copies of sale deeds (Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC),

  • I.A. under Section 151 CPC to mark documents.

• Trial Court dismissed applications by common order dated 07.10.2025.

• Present CRPs filed under Article 227.

---

CONTENTIONS

Petitioners

• Respondents dispute identity and location of suit property.

• Certified copies of neighbouring sale deeds would clarify boundaries.

• Refusal would cause irreparable loss.

Respondents

• Applications filed after three years solely to delay proceedings.

• No explanation for earlier non-production.

• Documents do not materially assist plaintiffs’ case.

---

FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT (Para 6)

1. No explanation for non-filing of documents earlier.

2. No foundational pleadings in plaint for marking such documents.

3. Plaintiff’s chief affidavit (27.06.2017) indicated knowledge of some documents.

4. Applications filed after inordinate delay.

---

HIGH COURT’S ANALYSIS

I. Reopening of Evidence

Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC:

• Intended for limited clarification by Court.

• Not to enable party to fill omissions or lacunae.

• Delay of three years unexplained.

---

II. Production of Additional Documents

Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC:

• Documents must ordinarily accompany plaint.

• Later production requires:

  • Due diligence,

  • Sufficient cause,

  • Foundational pleadings.

Absent in present case.

---

III. Supervisory Jurisdiction

Article 227 interference permissible only if:

• Order is perverse,

• Arbitrary,

• Jurisdictional error exists.

Court found:

• Reasons of trial Court neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.

• No perversity demonstrated.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Where a party seeks to reopen evidence and produce additional documents after an inordinate delay without providing satisfactory explanation and without laying foundational pleadings in the plaint, the trial court is justified in rejecting such applications. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court will not interfere with such discretionary and reasoned orders unless they are shown to be arbitrary or perverse.