Court’s Approach to New Facts Introduced in Rebuttal Affidavits
Facts of the Case :This case revolves around a civil dispute involving Basant Goel (Plaintiff) and Som Prakash Sethi & Others (Defendants) related to an Agreement to Sell dated 27 June 2021. The core issue is whether the terms of this agreement were modified later, and if any party failed to perform their obligations under it.
During the case proceedings, an important piece of evidence came into focus—a WhatsApp chat dated 21 September 2021 between the parties. The Plaintiff filed a rebuttal affidavit after the completion of evidence by both parties. This late filing included fresh explanations concerning the WhatsApp chat and a specific meeting dated 20 September 2021, where threats were allegedly made, and discussions about forfeiture of earnest money took place.
The Defendants objected strongly to this late evidence, claiming that the Plaintiff tried to introduce facts beyond the original pleadings and delayed dealing with the WhatsApp chat despite knowing about it since the start.
Dispute :The main dispute was whether the Plaintiff should be allowed to file and rely upon the rebuttal affidavit that introduces new evidence (the 20 September meeting and explanation of the 21 September WhatsApp chat) at such an advanced stage of the trial, given these facts were not mentioned in the original plaint or in the Plaintiff’s initial evidence affidavit.
The Defendants argued that:
- The WhatsApp chat had been in Plaintiff’s knowledge from the beginning since it was filed with the Defendants’ written statement.
- Plaintiff had a full opportunity during their evidence and cross-examination phases to deal with the chat but did not.
- The Plaintiff's filing of the rebuttal affidavit after evidence had closed was an improper attempt to fill gaps and address shortcomings in the earlier evidence.
- The Plaintiff’s case should be confined to the original pleadings, which did not mention this meeting or the WhatsApp discussion explicitly.
The Plaintiff argued that:
- The onus (burden) to prove modification of the agreement lies on the Defendants (Issue No. c), thus Plaintiff had reserved the right to file rebuttal evidence.
- The Plaintiff’s initial evidence affidavit was filed as "Affirmative Evidence," indicating intent to reserve rebuttal.
- A formal separate application for filing rebuttal evidence is not necessary under Order XVIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) 1908.
- The WhatsApp chat had been referred to indirectly and was part of the defense, needing explanation in light of the Defendants’ evidence.
- The pleadings should be read with a liberal approach, not overly technical, and facts relevant to the dispute should not be excluded on technicalities.
Reasoning by the Court The Court carefully reviewed the facts and the applicable law. The following points are crucial:
Pleadings and Evidence:The Court examined the plaint (the formal statement of claims) and found it absent of any reference to the WhatsApp chat dated 21 September 2021 or the meeting on 20 September 2021. This meant the Plaintiff was introducing new facts very late.
Opportunity to Deal With Evidence:Though the WhatsApp chat was produced by Defendants with their written statement, the Plaintiff had ample opportunity to address and explain this chat during the evidence phase but chose not to do so. This included cross-examination of a Defendant's witness where the chat was discussed.
Rebuttal Evidence Rules:Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC allows rebuttal evidence to be led without prior leave of the court but must be strictly confined to rebutting the evidence of the other side and not to introduce new facts. The Court observed that the Plaintiff’s rebuttal affidavit introduced entirely new facts (like the meeting and alleged threats) not pleaded earlier.
Liberal Construction of Pleadings:While the Court acknowledged that pleadings should be liberally construed and not interpreted narrowly, this principle does not allow a party to bring in new facts beyond original pleadings at a late stage to gain tactical advantage.
No Sufficient Cause Provided: The Plaintiff did not provide satisfactory reasons for the delay or for not including these facts earlier. It appeared to the Court that the Plaintiff was trying to patch up defects noticed in the earlier evidence.
Cross Examination and Opportunity: The Plaintiff argued no questions were asked during cross-examination about the WhatsApp chat, but the Court found this was incorrect. Questions related to this chat had indeed been put to both Plaintiff and Defendant witnesses.
Decision :The Court rejected the Plaintiff’s attempt to file the rebuttal affidavit containing new facts related to the WhatsApp chat and the meeting of 20 September 2021. The Plaintiff failed to show sufficient cause to allow such evidence at the advanced stage of the case.
Key Legal Provisions Discussed :Order XVIII Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code 1908: Related to the filing of rebuttal evidence after afffirmative evidence, allowing it only to contradict the evidence already led, and not to introduce new facts.
Crux of the case:The Plaintiff tried to introduce new claims and explanations through rebuttal evidence at the very late stage of the trial, namely to explain a WhatsApp chat and a meeting where threats were made. However, these claims were not mentioned in the original complaint or the initial evidence. The documents were already with Plaintiff early on, so they had many chances to talk about it but chose not to. The Court held that allowing this late evidence would be unfair and against proper legal procedure. Therefore, the Court did not allow the late rebuttal affidavit and insisted the case proceed to final hearing based on the evidence already admitted.
Case Title: Basant Goel Vs. Som Prakash Sethi
Case Number: CS(COMM) 557/2022
Court: High Court of Delhi
Hon’ble Judge: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Order Date: 27.08.2025
Disclaimer:The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By:Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
