Shakir vs. Premier Carworld Private Limited
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Shakir, filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 20th November, 2025, passed by the learned trial court in CS (COMM) No. 634/2022. The trial court had dismissed an application filed by the petitioner under Order XVI Rule 1 read with Rule 6 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The application sought to summon witnesses from the GST Department and obtain certain documents. The petitioner argued that the trial court's order was based on surmises and conjectures and that the sought witnesses and documents were material and relevant for a just adjudication of the dispute.
Held
The High Court held that the trial court's order dismissing the petitioner's application was reasoned and passed in accordance with law. The Court noted that the application was moved at the stage of final arguments before the trial court. The trial court's reasoning, as quoted in the judgment, indicated that the petitioner had chosen to examine himself and close his evidence without producing the requested witnesses and documents earlier. The trial court found that allowing such an application at that stage would lead to endless litigation as parties would continuously try to fill up lacunas. The High Court found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the trial court and therefore dismissed the petition. The ratio decidendi is that a party cannot be permitted to fill up lacunas in its case at the stage of final arguments by seeking to summon witnesses or produce documents that were not presented during the evidence stage.
Key Issues
1. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the petitioner's application for summoning witnesses and documents from the GST Department, thereby violating principles of natural justice and fair trial? The petitioner argued that the witnesses and documents sought were material and relevant for the proper adjudication of the dispute and that the trial court's dismissal was based on surmises and conjectures, contrary to settled legal principles. The petitioner contended that the trial court failed to consider the materiality and relevance of the evidence sought. The respondent (Premier Carworld Private Limited), though not represented, had previously argued before the trial court that the application was an attempt to fill up lacunas in the petitioner's case after the evidence of the plaintiff was closed and final arguments had commenced. The respondent had also raised a concern about a document annexed to the statement of truth pertaining to a date subsequent to the sworn date.
Sections Cited
Order XVI Rule 1, Order XVI Rule 6, Order XVI Rule 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER (Oral) Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.
This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 5413/2026 (for exemptions)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application is disposed of. CM(M) 201/2026
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the order dated 20th November, 2025, passed by learned trial court in CS (COMM) No. 634/2022, whereby an application under Order XVI Rule 1 read with Rule 6 and 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for summoning of witnesses from GST Department along with certain documents has been dismissed.
This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and CM(M) 201/2026 perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the learned trial court has passed the impugned order on the basis of surmises and conjectures and the same is contrary to settled principles of law. It is further submitted that the witnesses and documents sought to be brought on record are material and relevant for the just and proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties.
The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as follows: “However, instead of placing reliance on those documents at an earlier stage or examining the witnesses pertaining to said factum during his evidence, the plaintiff had chosen to examine himself and thereafter closed the PE. Now when the defendant had pointed out these lacunas in the case of Plaintiff while addressing final arguments, the Plaintiff has come up with this application. Not only this, but also, Ld. Counsel for Defendant has drawn my attention to the fact that though the statement of truth was sworn on 11.11.2025, however, one of the annexures filed along with it pertains to 11.11.2025, which is the photocopy of a postal receipt, hence, the Ld. Counsel for Defendant has prayed for initiating an enquiry into this matter as to how the deponent of statement of truth could have annexed a document pertaining to a subsequent date. Be that as it may, there is no mention about any document in the statement of truth, which stated that it comprised only of five pages, which are nothing but application as well as the statement of truth, hence, it could not be held that deponent had sworn falsely about the document of the subsequent date, thus no illegality could be attributed to the conduct of deponent in swearing the said affidavit. So far as the application on its merits is concerned, I have no hesitation in holding that a party could not be allowed to fill up the lacunas left out by it during trial of the case, CM(M) 201/2026 otherwise there would be an endless litigation and each party would continue to come up with such applications one after the other to fill up the lacunas in its case, hence, the application as moved is dismissed being devoid of merits with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant to compensate it for the delay occasioned due to today’s adjournment.”
Keeping in view the facts that the application has been moved at the stage of final arguments before the trial court and the same has been dismissed with a reasoned order passed in accordance with law, so, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merits along with pending applications, if any. RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J JANUARY 27, 2026/MR/ik
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.