Facts of the Case

This is a civil-procedure ruling on the right to lead evidence, not a GST decision — GST challans surface only as part of the underlying business transaction record. M/s Deepak Engineers had filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, for recovery of Rs.1,34,815/- against M/s P.P. Rolling Mills Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. and others, for job-work carried out pursuant to purchase orders, material challans, and GST challans exchanged between the parties. During trial, after repeated adjournments (partly due to COVID-19 and partly due to incomplete departmental records, including a technical problem on the GST department's portal that had held up production of records by a summoned witness from the Excise and Taxation Office), the trial court closed the plaintiff's evidence on 19.05.2023 and restrained him from examining any further witness — specifically his power-of-attorney holder, Deepak Saini — because that witness's name had been accidentally omitted from the list of witnesses. The plaintiff filed CR-3393-2023 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court against the orders dated 10.03.2023 and 19.05.2023.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the trial court was justified in closing the plaintiff's evidence and barring examination of his power-of-attorney holder solely because of an accidental omission of the witness's name from the list.
  2. Whether the plaintiff should be given one further opportunity to examine this witness.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The witness sought to be examined, Deepak Saini (the plaintiff's power of attorney holder, through whom the suit itself was filed), was a material witness well aware of the transactions between the parties.
  • The omission of his name from the witness list was a bona fide error on the part of counsel, not a deliberate default by the plaintiff.
  • The plaintiff undertook to examine himself as well if granted one effective opportunity.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The order does not record separate arguments from the defendants/respondents, as the Court dispensed with notice to them, finding no serious prejudice would be caused by the limited relief sought.

Court Order / Findings

  • The High Court held that procedure is the handmaid of justice and must not override substantive rights, and that the accidental omission of a witness's name should not deprive a litigant of his valuable right to lead evidence.
  • It found that in the absence of the plaintiff himself, his power-of-attorney holder was the most important witness to prove the case, and he should not suffer for an accidental clerical omission by counsel.
  • The revision petition was allowed, subject to the plaintiff paying costs of Rs.5,000/-, on the condition that he would not be granted more than one effective opportunity to examine the new witness, subject to the trial court's discretion on further adjournments.

Important Clarification

This order is about the right to lead evidence in a pending civil recovery suit, not about any GST liability — the GST challans referenced are simply part of the commercial paperwork underlying the recovery claim. It reaffirms that procedural lapses by counsel (such as omitting a witness's name) should not, without more, shut out a litigant's substantive right to prove his case.

Sections Involved

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — provisions governing recording of evidence and witness examination
  • GST challans referenced only as commercial/business records; no GST statute was interpreted.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the Petitioner, M/s Deepak Engineers — the trial court's orders restricting evidence were set aside and one further opportunity to examine the witness was granted, subject to costs.

Case Details

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh | CR-3393-2023 (O&M) | Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Monga | Date of Decision: 31.05.2023.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.