Dismissed¶38

Omwati and Another v. Kamla and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Aug 2025CR/1731/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

consenting defendant; non-contesting defendant; proforma defendant; order of leading evidence; exclusion of examination-in-chief affidavits; Order XVIII CPC; Code of Civil Procedure 1908; rebuttal opportunity; procedural fairness; Harminder Pal v. Pritam Das 1990 (2) RCR (Rent) 518; Jhumpa Bewa AIR 1987 Orissa 209; Kirti v. Anoop Singh 2023 (2) RCR (Civil) 591; handwriting and fingerprint expert; alleged affidavit 20.06.2006; electricity connection transfer; afterthought; CR-1731-2025 (O&M); Punjab and Haryana High Court; Mandeep Pannu; 11.08.2025; revision dismissed

What did the court decide?

Where a defendant supports the plaintiff's case, such a party should lead evidence immediately after the plaintiff, so that the contesting defendants are afforded a fair opportunity to lead rebuttal evidence. ¶29

Omwati and Another Vs Kamla and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether a consenting defendant admitting the plaintiff's case can lead evidence after the contesting defendants have concluded theirs (sequence/order of leading evidence, Order XVIII CPC being silent on which defendant begins). +2 more

¶28

Court's answer

It is indeed settled that no party to a suit can be denied the right to tender evidence.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

¶29

Key takeaways

Order XVIII CPC does not draw any express distinction between a contesting and a consenting defendant.obiter¶29
A consenting defendant stands on substantially the same footing as the plaintiff regarding the order of evidence.ratio¶35
Permitting a consenting defendant to lead evidence after the contesting defendants have closed theirs would amount to depriving the latter of an opportunity to rebut and would cause serious prejudice; the sequence of evidence is designed to preserve procedural fairness, not to facilitate tactical advantage or cure evidentiary deficiencies.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Mandeep Pannu J.), CR-1731-2025 (O&M), pronounced 11.08.2025: Proforma defendants Nos. 3 and 4 (Omwati and another), who had admitted the plaintiff-Satyajeet's claim in their written statement, challenged the trial Court's order dated 21.08.2024 excluding their examination-in-chief affidavits furnished on 22.05.2024, after contesting defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had closed their oral evidence on 29.03.2023. Held: a consenting defendant stands on substantially the same footing as the plaintiff regarding the order of evidence and should lead evidence immediately after the plaintiff and before the contesting defendants; permitting such a defendant to lead evidence after the contesting defendants have closed theirs deprives them of the opportunity to rebut and causes serious prejudice, the sequence of evidence preserving procedural fairness rather than facilitating tactical advantage. Order XVIII CPC draws no express distinction between a contesting and a consenting defendant, but the Division Bench decision in Harminder Pal (1990 (2) RCR (Rent) 518), carrying greater binding value as a larger Bench ruling, prevails over the Orissa High Court view in Jhumpa Bewa (AIR 1987 Orissa 209), and the ratio of Kirti (2023 (2) RCR (Civil) 591) was applied. The exclusion application was not an afterthought (moved on 10.07.2024, the same day the reply to the handwriting/fingerprint expert application was filed), and the affidavit plea was not new, para 7 of the contesting defendants' written statement having alleged the 2006 consent to transfer the agricultural electricity connection. Finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned order, the revision petition was dismissed and pending applications disposed of.

¶1

CR-1731-2025 (O&M)

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

-.-

¶5

CR-1731-2025 (O&M) Reserved on :- 08.08.2025 Pronounced on:-11.08.2025

¶6

Omwati and A n other ....Petitioners

VERSUS

Kamla and Oth e rs

....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

¶11

Present: M r . Amit Jain, Advocate for the a p pellants.

¶12

M r . Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate and M r . Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate f or respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶13

-.-

¶14

MANDEEP PANNU J.

¶15

Th e present revision petition h a s been filed by the petitio n ers challenging the correctness of the impugned or d er dated 21.08.2024 (Annexur e P- 11) passed by t h e learned trial Court, whereby t h e application moved by contes t ing respondent No s . 1 and 2/defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent N os. 1 and 2’) for exclusion of the affidavits filed by petitioners/prof o rma defendant Nos. 3 and 4 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioners’) in their examination-in-chief was a llowed. 2. In order to appreciate the contro v ersy in its correct perspectiv e , it would be appo s ite to notice the written state m ent filed by petitioners, whic h is placed on reco r d as Annexure P-4. Perusal o f the same reveals that petitio n ers have admitted the claim of the plaintiff- Sa t yajeet (proforma/respondent n o .3herein) except f or denying that they are colluding with defendant Nos. 1 and 2. In the end, they h a ve prayed that pleading is corr e ct and admitted and that they have TRIPTI SAINIno objection in case the present case is decreed as prayed for. Since the petitio n ers 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CR-1731-2025 (O&M) - 2 -

¶17

had admitted t h e claim of the plaintiff-Satyaje e t, there is no dispute that they are non-contesting d efendants.

¶18

It i s an admitted fact between the p arties that after the close of the o ral evidence of the plaintiff/respondent No.3 on 18 . 01.2023, the case was adjourne d to 08.02.2023 for his documentary evidence and o n 08.02.2023, plaintiff/respon d ent No.3 closed his documentary evidence and the case was adjourned to 29.03.2 0 23 for defendant e v idence, on which date the oral e vidence of defendants/respond e nts No. 1 and 2 w as closed after examining one D W and the case was adjourne d to 22.05.2024 for documentary evidence on beh a lf of defendants No. 1 and 2 a nd defendant evid e nce on behalf of proforma de fe ndants No.3 and 4 and defen d ant No.6 & 7.

¶19

Th e reafter petitioner No.1/proforma defendant No.3-Om w ati furnished affid a vit in examination-in-chief o n 22.05.2024. Similarly, petiti o ner No.2/proforma defendant No.4 furnished affid a vit in examination-in-chief on the same date. The petitioners/proforma defendant s No.3 and 4 moved an applica t ion for appointmen t of handwriting and fingerprint expert to verify/compare signat u res of petitioners/ p roforma defendants No. 3 a n d 4 over alleged affidavit d a ted 20.06.2006 ple a ding therein that defendants No. 1 and 2 have submitted in t h eir affidavits that p roforma defendants No.3 and 4 had issued this affidavit d a ted 20.06.2006 for n o objection if electricity conn e ction is transferred in the nam e of defendant No.1 .

¶20

Re p ly to application was also filed by contesting defendants No. 1 a nd 2/respondents N o.1 and 2. Thereafter, on 10.0 7 .2024, contesting defendants N o . 1 and 2 /respond e nts No.1 and 2 filed an applicat i on for excluding affidavits file d by petitioners/prof o rma defendants No. 3 and 4 a l leging therein that since they have TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CR-1731-2025 (O&M)

¶22

- 3 -

¶23

filed an written statement admitting the claim o f the plaintiff they were unde r an obligation to g i ve their evidence before evide n ce of contesting defendants N o.1 and 2/responde n ts No. 1 and 3 but since they n e ver came forward to exercise t h eir right, therefore, they have no right to file their a ffidavits at this stage, just to fil l up the lacuna in th e ir case.

¶24

R e ply to the said application wa s filed. Vide impugned order d a ted 21.08.2024, the said application was allowed b y the learned Trial Court. 7. Le a rned counsel for the petitione r s has, in the first instance, arg u ed that the issue a s to which of the defendants s h ould begin leading evidence is not specifically de a lt with in Order XVIII of the C ode of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( for short ‘CPC’). It is submitted that a defendant s u pporting the case of the plainti f f is not debarred eit h er expressly or impliedly from leading evidence, and that no p a rty to the suit can be denied the right to tender evid e nce.

¶25

It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Court, being th e master of the proceedings, is n ot to act as a passive agent but to guide the trial o f the suit. Therefore, accordin g to the counsel, it was the dut y of the trial Court t o invite the petitioners/consenti n g defendants to lead evidence f i rst. Reliance has b e en placed upon Jhumpa Bewa & Ors. v. Saha Dev Rout & Ors., AIR 1987 Orissa 209 , wherein the Orissa High Court held that defend a nts supporting the p laintiff’s case should lead evid e nce prior to those opposing it, a nd that the Court s h ould guide the parties in this re g ard. 9. I h ave considered the submission s made by learned counsel for the petitioners and g one through the record. 10. It i s indeed settled that no party t o a suit can be denied the righ t to tender evidence. The narrow question, however, is whether a consenting defen d ant TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CR-1731-2025 (O&M)

¶27

- 4 -

¶28

admitting the p laintiff’s case, can lead evide n ce after the contesting defend a nts have concluded theirs.

¶29

Or d er XVIII CPC does not draw any express distinction betwe e n a contesting and a consenting defendant. Howe v er, judicial pronouncements have consistently hel d that where a defendant suppo r ts the plaintiff’s case, such a p a rty should lead e v idence immediately after the plaintiff, so that the contes t ing defendants are a fforded a fair opportunity to lea d rebuttal evidence. 12. In Kirti v. Anoop Singh (deceased) through LRs & Ors., 2023 (2) RCR (Civil) 591 , it was held that once a defen d ant admits the case of the plai n tiff and supports h e r then, she is essentially claimi n g the same relief as is claime d by the plaintiff. C o nsequently, that defendant sh o uld have moved the Court to lead evidence befor e the contesting defendants were permitted to do so. If the petiti o ner is permitted to lead evidence at this stage, t h e contesting defendants woul d be deprived of the o pportunity to counter evidence . 13. Th e ratio of above said judgmen t fully applies to the present f a cts. The judgment o f the Hon’ble Orissa High Cou r t in Jhumpa Bewa (supra ) ca n not be applied in vi e w of the above-said decision i n Kirti’s case (supra) and in vie w of the contrary de c ision of Division Bench of this Court in Harminder Pal & Anr. v. Pritam Das & Ors., 1990 (2) RCR (Rent) 518 , which authoritatively held th a t a consenting def e ndant cannot lead evidence a ft er the contesting defendants have concluded their s , though such a defendant may lead evidence after the close of the plaintiff’s case and before the contesting d efendants commence theirs. T he decision of the l arger Bench carries greater bin d ing value. 14. It i s next argued by learned co u nsel for the petitioners that the application lea d ing to the impugned order was an afterthought, intended to de f eat TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CR-1731-2025 (O&M)

¶31

- 5 -

¶32

their rights, as t h e petitioners had already filed a ffidavits on 22.05.2024 along w ith an application f o r appointment of a handwriting and fingerprint expert. 15. Th i s contention is without me r it. The record reveals that the application for a ppointment of an expert was fi l ed on 22.05.2024, the reply the r eto was filed on 10 . 07.2024, and on the same date, the application for exclusion o f the affidavits of th e proforma defendants was m o ved. The timing and sequenc e of events clearly s h ow that the application cannot be termed an afterthought to de f eat the petitioners’ r ights.

¶33

It i s further contended that the p lea concerning the affidavit d a ted 20.05.2006 allegedly issued by the petitioners was never raised in the pleadings and was introd u ced for the first time in the e v idence of defendants No. 1 an d 2, therefore, the c o nsenting defendants No. 3 an d 4 left with no other option bu t to lead the eviden c e after defendants No.1 and 2 b y examining the handwriting ex p ert in order to dis p rove the alleged affidavit. Sim i larly, the plaintiffs could not lead evidence on th e alleged affidavit as this fact was introduced firtst time in the evidence of def e ndants No.1 and 2 17. Th i s argument is also unfounded. Perusal of the written state m ent filed by defend a nts No. 1 and 2 reveals that i n para 7, it was specifically alle g ed that the plaintif f , along with defendant No. 3, had consented in 2006 to transfe r an agricultural ele c tricity connection from the na m e of the plaintiff’s grandfathe r to that of Kamla D evi. This averment directly rel a tes to the disputed affidavit of the same year. The plaintiffs were, therefore, fully a ware of the controversy and c o uld have led evide n ce at the appropriate stage. T hey failed to do so, and are n ow attempting to b r ing such evidence through pet i tioners/consenting defendants a fter the contesting defendants have closed their evi d ence, which cannot be permitte d . TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

CR-1731-2025 (O&M) - 6 -

¶35

Th u s, the law is very much clear t h at a consenting defendant stand s on substantially th e same footing as the plaintif f regarding the order of evide n ce. Permitting suc h a defendant to lead evidenc e after contesting defendants h ave closed theirs w o uld amount to depriving the l a tter of an opportunity to rebut a nd would cause se r ious prejudice. The sequence o f evidence is designed to pres e rve procedural fai r ness, not to facilitate tactic a l advantage or cure evident i ary deficiencies.

¶36

CONCLUSION

¶37

In v iew of the foregoing discussio n , I find no illegality or perversit y in the impugned o r der of the learned trial Court. T he application moved on behal f of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for exclusion of the affi d avits filed by petitioners/profo r ma defendant Nos. 3 and 4 was rightly allowed.

¶38

Ac c ordingly, the present revision p etition is dismissed. 21. Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶39

August 11, 202 5 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Wheth e r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Wheth e r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶40

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 21.08.2024 (Annexure P-11) passed by the learned trial Court allowing the application moved by contesting respondent Nos. 1 and 2/defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for exclusion of the affidavits filed by petitioners/proforma defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in their examination-in-chief.¶15
learned trial Court · 21.08.2024
Prior proceeding
Petitioners filed a written statement (Annexure P-4) admitting the claim of plaintiff-Satyajeet (proforma respondent No. 3) except denying collusion with defendant Nos. 1 and 2, praying that the pleading be decreed as prayed for; they are therefore non-contesting defendants.¶15
Prior proceeding
Oral evidence of plaintiff/respondent No. 3 closed on 18.01.2023; case adjourned to 08.02.2023 for his documentary evidence.¶18
Prior proceeding
On 08.02.2023 plaintiff/respondent No. 3 closed his documentary evidence; case adjourned to 29.03.2023 for defendant evidence.¶18
Prior proceeding
On 29.03.2023 the oral evidence of defendants/respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was closed after examining one DW.¶18
Prior proceeding
Case adjourned to 22.05.2024 for documentary evidence of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and defendant evidence of proforma defendants Nos. 3 and 4 and defendants Nos. 6 and 7.¶18
Prior proceeding
On 22.05.2024 petitioner No. 1/proforma defendant No. 3 (Omwati) furnished her affidavit in examination-in-chief, and petitioner No. 2/proforma defendant No. 4 likewise furnished an affidavit in examination-in-chief on the same date.¶19
Prior proceeding
Petitioners/proforma defendants Nos. 3 and 4 moved an application for appointment of a handwriting and fingerprint expert to verify/compare their signatures.¶19
Prior proceeding
In that application the petitioners pleaded that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had submitted in their affidavits that proforma defendants Nos. 3 and 4 had issued an alleged affidavit dated 20.06.2006 for no objection to transfer of electricity connection in the name of defendant No. 1.¶19
Prior proceeding
Reply to the expert application was filed by contesting defendants Nos. 1 and 2/respondents Nos. 1 and 2.¶20
Prior proceeding
On 10.07.2024 contesting defendants Nos. 1 and 2/respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application for excluding the affidavits filed by petitioners/proforma defendants Nos. 3 and 4.¶20
Prior proceeding
In the exclusion application the contesting defendants alleged that since the petitioners had filed a written statement admitting the plaintiff's claim they were under an obligation to give their evidence before the contesting defendants' evidence, but never came forward, and therefore had no right to file their affidavits at that stage just to fill up the lacuna in their case.¶23
Prior proceeding
Reply to the exclusion application was filed; vide impugned order dated 21.08.2024 the learned Trial Court allowed it.¶24

Omwati and Another v. Kamla and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omwati and Another v. Kamla and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Chander Garg Vs Pale Ram and Ors.

Malkit Kaur and Anr. Vs General Public

Gurinderbir Singh Vs Sukhpal Singh and Others

Sarika Arora Vs Capt. Harjit Singh Toor and Another

M/S Sialkot Steel Works Vs M/S Tata Steel Bsl Ltd.

Paramjit Kaur Vs Sarabjeet Kaur and Others