Introduction:
In the case of Smt. Amar Kaur and Others v. Sh. Rishib Kumar (CMPMO No.356 of 2023), decided on 23rd September 2025, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, reaffirmed the importance of prioritizing justice over procedural formalities. The Court clarified that providing translated versions of already exhibited documents cannot be considered as adducing additional evidence. The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate G.D. Verma along with Advocate Sumit Sharma, had approached the Court challenging the order of the Additional District Judge, who dismissed their application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The dispute arose when the petitioners sought permission to prove the Hindi translations of four Urdu documents that were already exhibited during the trial. The translators who originally translated these documents had passed away, making it necessary to prove the translations afresh. The Appellate Court, however, treated the application as one seeking to introduce additional evidence, which was dismissed, prompting the petitioners to seek relief before the High Court.
Arguments:
The petitioners argued that their application was merely for facilitating the understanding of the court by submitting Hindi translations of Urdu documents that had already been marked as exhibits. They contended that their request was procedural and essential to assist the court in appreciating the contents of the documents properly. Their counsel argued that when the original documents were already admitted in evidence, their translated versions were only intended to clarify the meaning and content, not to add anything new to the evidentiary record. The petitioners maintained that the Appellate Court had committed a serious error by misinterpreting their application as one for additional evidence, thereby defeating the ends of justice. They relied heavily on the principle that procedural laws are intended to aid justice, not to obstruct it, and cited precedents that emphasized the same. Furthermore, it was contended that the death of the translator created a genuine necessity for the petitioners to provide verified translations to ensure the documents could be properly appreciated in the appellate proceedings.
On the other hand, the respondents, represented by Senior Advocate Lovneesh Kanwar along with Advocate Tek Chand, opposed the plea by asserting that the petitioners were attempting to fill in lacunae after having lost at the trial stage. They contended that allowing the translations to be proved at the appellate stage would amount to re-opening evidence indirectly, contrary to procedural law. The respondents maintained that once a trial concludes, no party should be permitted to improve its case or introduce new material under the garb of a translation. They argued that the petitioners’ failure to establish the translated versions during trial reflected a deliberate omission, and such omissions cannot be corrected later by invoking the court’s inherent powers under Section 151 CPC. Moreover, the respondents asserted that the petitioners’ move was not in good faith and would undermine the sanctity of the trial process if allowed. They further contended that the Appellate Court’s interpretation of the application as one seeking additional evidence was correct in law, since the translations were not part of the record earlier and introducing them now would prejudice the respondents’ rights.
Judgement:
After carefully considering both sides, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed that the Appellate Court had erred in treating the petitioners’ application as one for leading additional evidence. The High Court held that the act of providing translated versions of already exhibited documents could not, “by any stretch of imagination,” be treated as adducing new evidence. Justice Goel emphasized that the petitioners were not seeking to introduce any fresh material or new documentary evidence, but merely requesting the court to take on record translations of the same documents already marked as exhibits. He observed that the purpose behind submitting translations was purely to assist the court in comprehending the contents of the documents written in Urdu, a language not commonly understood by all judicial officers. The Court reaffirmed that procedural laws must serve the ends of justice and that hyper-technical interpretations which hinder the fair adjudication of disputes should be avoided.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Chandreshwar Bhuthnath Devasthan v. Baboy Matiram Varenkar (2018), Justice Goel reiterated that the act of providing a translation for an already exhibited document does not amount to adducing additional evidence. The Supreme Court had made it clear that such translations are merely an aid for understanding and do not alter the substance of the evidence already on record. Relying on this principle, the High Court held that the Appellate Court’s refusal to accept the translated documents was legally untenable and unjustified. The High Court further observed that the refusal had the effect of obstructing the fair adjudication of the appeal, as the absence of translated copies would prevent the court from fully appreciating the evidence presented. Justice Goel also highlighted that the courts exist to dispense justice, not to perpetuate procedural rigidity. He noted that Section 151 CPC empowers the courts to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice, and that this inherent power must be exercised liberally when justice demands flexibility.
The Court then proceeded to criticize the Appellate Court’s approach as overly technical, observing that the impugned order suffered from a misconception of law. Justice Goel pointed out that the procedural framework of civil litigation should not become a hindrance in achieving substantial justice. The Court remarked that the ends of justice would have been better served had the Appellate Court permitted the translated copies to be taken on record. The High Court also clarified that the purpose of procedural provisions such as those under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, which governs additional evidence, is not to obstruct legitimate procedural assistance but to ensure that justice is not compromised. Justice Goel observed that if the Appellate Court had allowed the application, it would have enabled a more effective evaluation of the existing evidence rather than introducing any new facts. The Court firmly stated that the translation of already exhibited documents does not change the evidentiary character of the documents themselves, and thus, the apprehension of introducing new evidence was misplaced.
In conclusion, the Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed the petition, set aside the order of the Appellate Court, and directed that the translated copies of the Urdu documents be taken on record for the purpose of the appellate proceedings. The Court reiterated that the administration of justice must always take precedence over procedural niceties and technical formalities. Justice Goel emphasized that courts should not lose sight of the broader objective of the judicial process, which is to resolve disputes fairly and ensure that truth prevails. The Court’s decision reaffirmed the fundamental principle that procedural laws are handmaidens of justice, not its mistress. This judgment stands as a reminder to all courts to interpret procedural provisions in a manner that promotes, rather than frustrates, the cause of justice.