The Gauhati High Court refused to permit a party to file affidavit of evidence on noting that they had taken 11 adjournments, observing that though courts have the discretion to permit filing of evidence after delay, such discretion has to be exercised strictly where repeated adjournments have been granted. [2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 84]

It held that plaintiffs cannot be allowed to file their evidence-on-affidavit "as a matter of right" at a belated stage without showing any exceptional cause.

Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer observed, “No doubt, the trial court as well as this Court has the discretion to allow the plaintiffs to file their evidence even after a long period of delay. However, that discretion needs to be exercised more strictly when there has been repeated adjournments... This Court is of the view that the petitioners/plaintiffs cannot be allowed to file their evidence-on-affidavit as a matter of right at this belated stage.”

The above observations came while dismissing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 115 CPC challenging the orders of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dibrugarh, whereby the plaintiffs were debarred from filing evidence, their application to reopen evidence was rejected and the suit was fixed for arguments.

The title suit was instituted seeking a declaration that a Sale Deed was executed by taking advantage of the poor health and mental condition of the original plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff died and his legal heirs were substituted.

Before the High Court, the petitioners submitted that they were under the impression that their earlier counsel was diligently conducting the case and came to know about the closure of evidence only after engaging a new counsel. They further pleaded that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but had occurred due to circumstances beyond their control.

Upon examining the record, the High Court noted that the trial court had granted 11 adjournments to the plaintiffs for filing their evidence-on-affidavit.

Referring to the conduct of the plaintiffs, the Court observed, “This Court has to consider the conduct of the plaintiffs/petitioners and to see whether there is negligence on their part or abuse of the process or deliberate attempt to prolong the suit.”

The Court found that no exceptional cause had been shown for the delay.

“Upon going through the entire records and the orders of adjournments granted by the trial court, this Court is not able to find any exceptional cause shown by the plaintiffs/petitioners for the delay in the filing of their evidence-on-affidavit.”

Noting that the suit was filed in 2019 and had already reached the stage of arguments, the Court held, “Allowing the instant petition would not serve the interests of justice and in fact lead to prolonging the pendency of the Title Suit No. 88/2019.”

The petition was accordingly dismissed.

Case Name: On the Death of Sayed Maqsud Ahmed, His Legal Heirs namely Mumtaz Begum & Ors. v. Khurshid Ali Ahmed

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 84

Case No.: CRP(IO)/291/2025

Click here to read the judgment