Delhi High Court Allows Defendant to Lead Evidence Subject to Payment of Costs.

The Delhi High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to permit the petitioner–defendant to lead evidence in a civil suit, subject to payment of costs. The Court found that although the trial court was justified in closing the defendant’s evidence for non-payment of earlier costs, the ends of justice required one final opportunity to conclude evidence to ensure expeditious disposal of the matter. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition conditionally, directing payment of total costs of ₹85,000 and setting a strict timeline for the trial court proceedings.

1. The petitioner (Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd.) challenged two trial court orders dated 01.04.2025 and 15.07.2025.
2. The trial court had refused to waive previous costs, closed the petitioner’s evidence, and dismissed an application seeking recall of the order, further imposing additional costs.
3. As of the hearing date, the petitioner was liable to pay ₹35,000 in costs.
4. The respondent (M/s Supreme Motors) appeared on advance notice and offered, in the interest of early disposal, to allow the petition subject to further reasonable costs and recording of the defendant’s evidence before 05.02.2026 (the next date fixed for final arguments).

1. The Court noted that both sides were agreeable to proceed with recording of the defendant’s evidence, provided the petitioner paid all costs and an additional reasonable sum.
2. Justice Girish Kathpalia held that in the interest of expeditious disposal, one opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to lead evidence, subject to strict compliance and costs.
3. The petitioner was directed to:

Pay the existing costs of ₹35,000 plus additional costs of ₹50,000 to the respondent through counsel by 20.11.2025.

Ensure that the trial court either records the defendant’s evidence on 20.11.2025 or fixes a date within the same calendar year for doing so.

Examine only one witness, as stated by counsel, with no further opportunity for evidence.

The trial court was directed to proceed with final arguments on 05.02.2026 as already scheduled.

1. Courts should balance procedural discipline with the need to do substantive justice.
2. Even where a party defaults in complying with cost or procedural directions, limited indulgence may be granted to prevent denial of opportunity, provided compensatory costs and firm timelines are imposed.

Case: Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. v. M/s Supreme Motors

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Girish Kathpalia

Case No.: CM(M) 2014/2025, CM APPL. 65380/2025 & CM APPL. 65381/2025