Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 7: Sending a strong message against procedural delays, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that parties cannot invoke inherent powers to “circumvent the consequences flowing from closure of evidence” or prolong trials at advanced stages.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal dismissed a petition filed by Nisar Ahmad Itoo, upholding the order of the Principal District Judge, Kulgam, which had rejected a plea to summon a witness after the case had already reached the stage of final arguments.
The case arose from a suit for recovery of Rs 4.5 lakh filed under Order XXXVII CPC. Though the petitioner had included the witness in his list, he failed to produce him despite sufficient opportunities granted by the trial court. Even an earlier request to summon the same witness had been declined in 2020.
At a much later stage, after closure of evidence in November 2023 and when the matter was listed for final arguments, the petitioner again moved an application under Section 151 CPC.
The trial court dismissed the plea, terming it an attempt to protract the proceedings.
Backing the trial court, the High Court observed that the petitioner had knowledge of the witness at the appropriate stage and the procedural framework casts an obligation to lead evidence within granted opportunities. Moreover, failure to do so cannot, as a matter of course, be remedied later.
The High Court made it clear that inherent powers under Section 151 CPC are meant to advance justice where the Code is silent, but cannot be exercised in a manner that defeats the scheme of the Code or renders procedural discipline nugatory.
The High Court cautioned that permitting such applications at a belated stage would result in reopening of entire defence evidence, delay proceedings further and prejudice the opposite party entitled to timely adjudication.
It also noted that Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC applies only to recalling witnesses already examined and does not empower courts to summon new witnesses at such a stage.
Exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court reiterated that its role is supervisory and limited to correcting patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or manifest perversity. Finding none in the present case, the High Court held the trial court’s order to be in consonance with settled principles.
Observing that the application was an attempt to fill up the lacunae and bypass procedural discipline, the High Court dismissed the petition as without merit and upheld the trial court’s order.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
