Safiya Malik

The Calcutta High Court upheld a trial court’s decision restricting the number of additional witnesses in a matrimonial dispute. The court examined the scope of judicial discretion in allowing witness testimony and determined that the trial court had properly exercised its authority. The petitioner’s request for introducing more witnesses was denied on the grounds that the trial judge had already considered the matter and permitted two witnesses to testify.

The legal proceedings originated from a matrimonial suit filed in 2017, in which the petitioner, the wife, challenged an order passed by the trial court on January 10, 2025. The order denied her request to introduce additional witnesses, closing her evidence stage and proceeding with the case. The petitioner had initially submitted a list of seven witnesses on December 6, 2024, but the trial court permitted only two of these witnesses to testify.

The petitioner approached the High Court, contending that the exclusion of the remaining witnesses deprived her of a fair opportunity to present her case. She argued that the trial court’s decision was arbitrary and prevented her from proving essential facts related to her counterclaim for restitution of conjugal rights.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a litigant has the right to present witnesses necessary for proving their case. The judgment recorded, "A party can bring a witness to give evidence or produce documents without recourse to the court’s process under Rule 1A, but if attendance is to be procured through the court, summons must be obtained under Order XVI Rule 1(1)." The petitioner relied on Mange Ram v. Brij Mohan & Ors. [(1983) 4 SCC 36], arguing that Order XVI Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure allows a party to present witnesses without necessarily summoning them through the court’s assistance.

The opposite party, represented by counsel, opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner had already deposed along with her son, father, and brother. The respondent contended that the trial court had exercised discretion by allowing only two out of the seven witnesses. The judgment stated, "The learned trial judge has exercised his judicial discretion in allowing two out of seven witnesses to depose."

The High Court examined whether the trial court’s decision was based on a reasonable assessment of the case. The judgment recorded, "The prayer for recalling the order was rightly rejected by the trial court as the petitioner had already been given sufficient opportunity to lead evidence." The court noted that the petitioner initially sought the inclusion of several witnesses but later limited her request to one additional witness. The trial court had duly considered this request and had permitted two key witnesses to testify.

The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in R. Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2013) 14 SCC 266], which held that the quality, rather than the quantity, of witnesses is paramount in judicial proceedings. The judgment recorded, "It is not the number of witnesses but the quality of their evidence that is relevant in judicial proceedings. Courts are not bound to allow a party to introduce an additional number of witnesses if their testimonies are not deemed essential to the adjudication of the case."

The High Court also considered the issue of procedural fairness and whether the petitioner had been deprived of an opportunity to present material evidence. The judgment stated, "The learned trial judge was right in not allowing the remaining witnesses to depose. The order impugned does not suffer from any illegality or procedural irregularity warranting interference."

After examining the facts and submissions, the High Court dismissed the petition and directed that the matrimonial proceedings be concluded without unnecessary delay. The petitioner’s request for a stay was also rejected. The judgment recorded, "The prayer for stay is considered and rejected."

Case Title: Ratna Chatterjee v. Sovan Chatterjee
Case Number: C.O. 307 of 2025
Bench: Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

[Read/Download order]