Rajasthan High Court Quashes Order Closing Party's Evidence Citing Delay In Witness Testimony, Says 'Justice Hurried Is Buried'

The Rajasthan High Court set aside a trial court order which after allowing summoning of a witness had closed a party's evidence when the witness was not produced even after multiple opportunities, observing that "justice hurried is justice buried".

Justice Arun Monga held that without proper evidence, adjudication might result in erroneous findings. Hence, the high court gave one more opportunity after imposing cost of Rs. 5000 on the petitioner.

"It transpires that what weighed on the mind of the learned trial court was that granting of further opportunity to the petitioner would result in delay of the trial proceedings. No doubt, granting of opportunity would have resulted in delay, but the same could have been compensated by imposing cost. While justice delayed is justice denied, at the same time, justice hurried is justice buried. Without proper evidence, being adduced before the learned trial court, the adjudication on the issues involved, may result in erroneous findings". 

The respondent had filed a civil suit against the petitioner, seeking declaration of ownership, possession and recovery of mesne profits concerning two shops of which he claimed to be the owner. It was alleged that the shops were rented to the petitioner who had stopped paying rent and had failed to vacate the premises despite notice.

Petitioner denied all claims, claiming to be the owner himself, and at the stage of evidence, submitted an enquiry report which stated that no Patta on the shops were issued to the respondent. Further, to testify regarding such enquiry report, application was moved to summon the Panchayat Officer which was allowed by the trial court.

However, subsequently, the trial Court closed the petitioner's evidence without recording Panchayat Officer's testimony on the ground that despite giving multiple opportunities, the witness was not produced. Hence, petition was moved before the Court.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that since the witness was a government officer, being on official duty, he could not be produced for the testimony. Hence, the trial court's observation regarding multiple opportunities being given was unjustified in these circumstances.

"I am of the view that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity ought to be granted to the petitioner, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-. It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted at the instance of applicant. However, the learned trial court may adjourn the matter depending upon its work exigency," the court said while disposing of the petition.

Case Title: Mahipal Singh v Kundal Mal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 198

Click Here To Read/Download Order