1. Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court has declined to interfere with the trial court’s order refusing recall of an earlier direction closing cross-examination of the plaintiff’s primary witness (PW-1). However, to prevent derailment of the civil suit and in the interest of expeditious justice, the Court—upon consent of both sides—granted the petitioner one final and non-extendable opportunity to complete the cross-examination. This opportunity was made subject to payment of ₹50,000 as costs in addition to amounts already imposed by the trial court. The matter was accordingly disposed of, with strict directions ensuring that the official witness and records must be produced on the next date.
2. Facts
The underlying civil suit involved multiple defendants, including the present petitioner (defendant no. 2). PW-1’s cross-examination had been pending for several dates. The petitioner had earlier sought summoning of official records with which PW-1 was to be confronted. On 22.07.2024, the trial court noted absence of participation from another defendant and closed cross-examination on that defendant’s behalf, but granted the petitioner a fresh opportunity on 05.08.2024. On that date, the summoned official appeared without records, prompting adjournment to 24.08.2024. The petitioner filed another application for recall, which was disposed of, and the suit was fixed for 22.10.2024. On that date, despite a passover, petitioner’s main counsel failed to appear and the application for summoning the official witness was dismissed. The trial court then closed the petitioner’s right to cross-examine PW-1. A review application challenging this was dismissed on 15.04.2025, leading to the present petition.
3. Issues
The Court examined:
- Whether the trial court committed any jurisdictional error or procedural irregularity in closing the petitioner’s right to cross-examine PW-1.
- Whether recall or review of the order dated 22.07.2024 was justified.
- Whether the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for repeated non-production of records or absence of counsel.
- Whether the High Court, exercising supervisory jurisdiction, should intervene despite acknowledged lapses by the petitioner.
- Whether, notwithstanding lack of legal infirmity, a last opportunity should be granted to avoid prejudice to adjudication on merits.
4. Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioner argued that closing the right to cross-examine PW-1 would cause irreparable prejudice because the official records—central to disproving the plaintiff’s claim—had not been produced earlier due to circumstances beyond the petitioner’s control. It was submitted that on 05.08.2024 the official witness had indeed appeared, showing good-faith effort, but arrived without the required records. Counsel argued that the closure on 22.10.2024 occurred only because the main counsel was momentarily unavailable despite seeking a passover. They maintained that the trial court adopted an unduly rigid approach and that the principles of natural justice required permitting cross-examination, especially when the petitioner was ready to ensure production of the official record.
5. Respondent’s arguments
The respondent-plaintiff argued that the petitioner had been granted repeated opportunities and had consistently delayed proceedings. They emphasised that the petitioner had no explanation for failing to summon the official record before 22.10.2024, even though the requirement had been known for months. The respondents also relied on the trial court’s chronology to show that the petitioner’s conduct had prejudiced the course of the trial and caused unreasonable delay. However, in the interest of an expeditious conclusion, respondent no. 1’s counsel stated before the High Court that he would not oppose one last opportunity, provided heavy costs were imposed to deter further delay.
6. Analysis of the law
The Court reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is narrow and meant to correct jurisdictional errors, procedural irregularity causing grave injustice, or manifest perversity—not to re-appreciate discretionary procedural decisions of trial courts. Closure of cross-examination is a judicial discretion, typically interfered with only when exercised arbitrarily. Here, the trial court had granted several opportunities, issued summons to official witnesses, and accommodated adjournments. The petitioner’s lapses—not the trial court’s conduct—resulted in closure of cross-examination. Hence, no infirmity existed for intervention. However, the High Court balanced this with the larger objective of deciding civil disputes on merits, noting that a limited indulgence, conditioned by strict compliance and heavy costs, would best serve justice.
7. Precedent analysis
Although the judgment cites no external precedents, the Court’s approach is consistent with long-standing jurisprudence on discretionary procedural orders:
• Courts generally favour adjudication on merits, especially when cross-examination is essential to test truthfulness.
• Supervisory jurisdiction does not substitute the trial court’s discretion unless injustice is apparent.
• Delay attributable to a party may be remedied by imposing costs rather than foreclosing rights, but only sparingly.
The judgment implicitly follows these procedural fairness principles, giving a last opportunity while affirming the correctness of the trial court’s reasoning.
8. Court’s reasoning
The Court expressly held that no illegality existed in the trial court’s refusal to recall its earlier order: the petitioner had no explanation for failure to produce the official record before 22.10.2024. The closure of cross-examination was therefore justified. Yet, the Court emphasised that the litigation should progress effectively, and that a rigid approach might result in the suit proceeding without a full testing of evidence. Since respondent no.1 fairly offered consent to one further opportunity, the Court accepted that solution. It directed that ₹50,000 be paid within two weeks and made clear that only one final opportunity would be granted—irrespective of whether the summoned record is produced. The petitioner must also ensure the official witness attends with records on the appointed date.
9. Conclusion
The High Court declined to interfere with the trial court’s order on merits but allowed a final chance solely on equitable grounds to prevent miscarriage of justice. The petition and accompanying application were disposed of with strict directions: the petitioner must pay ₹50,000 within two weeks; both parties must appear before the trial court on 16.12.2025; and the trial court must fix a date for concluding PW-1’s cross-examination. The petitioner will have only one last opportunity, and failure to utilise it will foreclose further cross-examination permanently.
10. Implications
This ruling reinforces that while trial courts’ procedural orders should not be lightly disturbed, High Courts may exercise limited supervisory discretion to prevent substantial injustice. It clarifies that litigants cannot misuse adjournments or repeated procedural requests; yet, in exceptional circumstances, courts may allow a narrowly tailored final opportunity with deterrent costs. The judgment serves as a warning against dilatory tactics and underscores the obligation of parties to ensure timely production of records when cross-examination depends on them. It also helps maintain balance between procedural efficiency and substantive justice in civil trials.
CASE LAW REFERENCES
(No external precedents are cited in the judgment. Below reflects principles implicitly applied.)
1. Principles governing Article 227 jurisdiction
Holding: Supervisory jurisdiction is limited to correcting jurisdictional or procedural errors causing grave injustice.
Application: Court declined interference as the trial court acted within lawful discretion.
2. Procedural fairness doctrine
Holding: Courts may grant last opportunities to avoid injustice, subject to costs.
Application: Final opportunity granted solely on equitable considerations.
SEO-FRIENDLY FAQs
1. Why did the Delhi High Court grant a last opportunity for cross-examination?
Although the trial court acted correctly, the High Court permitted one final chance to avoid prejudice to the petitioner and to ensure adjudication on merits, subject to payment of costs.
2. Did the Court find any fault with the trial court’s order closing cross-examination?
No. The High Court explicitly found no infirmity and noted the petitioner had repeatedly failed to produce records or appear through counsel.
3. What conditions apply to the final opportunity?
The petitioner must pay ₹50,000 within two weeks, ensure presence of the official witness with records, and conclude cross-examination on the next date—no second chance will be granted.