Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court partly allowed a petition challenging the closure of cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witness in a commercial suit, holding that although the trial court’s order suffered from no legal infirmity, the interests of justice warranted grant of one final opportunity to conclude cross-examination. Emphasising that procedural discipline must coexist with fairness, the Court restored the defendant’s right to cross-examine PW1, but only on strict monetary and logistical conditions, making it clear that no further indulgence would be shown .
Facts
The dispute arose in a civil suit where the plaintiff had examined its witness (PW1), who travelled from abroad to depose before the trial court. On 21.08.2025, when the matter was listed for cross-examination, the defendant failed to conclude the same, leading the trial court to close the cross-examination of PW1 by a judicial order.
Aggrieved by the closure, the defendant approached the Delhi High Court by filing a petition under its supervisory jurisdiction, assailing the order dated 21.08.2025. The defendant argued that closure of cross-examination would cause serious prejudice and would effectively deny a meaningful opportunity to contest the plaintiff’s evidence.
During hearing before the High Court, counsel for the plaintiff, while supporting the trial court’s order, fairly stated that solely in the interest of expeditious disposal of the suit, the plaintiff was willing to grant one final opportunity to the defendant to conclude cross-examination, subject to full reimbursement of travel and stay expenses incurred by PW1.
Issues
The principal issue before the High Court was whether, despite finding no infirmity in the trial court’s order closing cross-examination, the Court could still exercise its discretion to restore the opportunity in order to prevent prejudice and ensure a fair trial. The ancillary issue was the nature of conditions that could be imposed to balance procedural discipline with fairness to the witness and the opposite party.
Petitioner’s arguments
The defendant contended that cross-examination is a valuable and substantive right, and that denial of the same would irreversibly prejudice its defence. It was argued that the failure to conclude cross-examination earlier was not deliberate, and that the defendant should be afforded one last chance in the interest of justice, particularly when the witness’s testimony was central to the adjudication of the dispute.
Respondent’s arguments
The plaintiff opposed the petition on merits, submitting that repeated opportunities had already been granted and that the trial court had rightly closed the cross-examination to prevent delay. However, taking a pragmatic and fair stand, the plaintiff agreed to restoration of one opportunity provided the defendant bore the full financial burden of the witness’s international travel and stay, so that the plaintiff was not prejudiced by further delay.
Analysis of the law
The Court reiterated that while cross-examination is an integral facet of fair trial, it is not an unbridled right. Trial courts are fully justified in closing cross-examination where parties adopt dilatory tactics. At the same time, higher courts retain discretion to balance procedural rigour with substantive justice, particularly where denial of opportunity would cause disproportionate prejudice and the opposite party can be compensated through costs.
Precedent analysis
Although no specific precedent was cited, the order is consistent with settled principles that courts may grant a final opportunity to advance justice, even while affirming the correctness of a procedural order, provided strict safeguards are imposed to deter abuse and ensure expeditious trial.
Court’s reasoning
The High Court expressly observed that there was no infirmity in the trial court’s order closing cross-examination. Nevertheless, considering the consensual stand of both sides and to ensure expeditious disposal of the suit, the Court exercised its discretion to restore one final opportunity.
To balance equities, the Court imposed detailed and stringent conditions. These included mandatory appearance before the trial court on a fixed date, advance sharing of documentary proof of airfare and hotel expenses incurred by PW1, and payment by the defendant of return airfare for two dates and hotel charges for limited days, calculated on the basis of the witness’s earlier visit. The Court made it clear that the opportunity was “one and only one”, leaving no scope for further indulgence .
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court disposed of the petition by granting the defendant a final opportunity to conclude cross-examination of PW1, strictly subject to compliance with financial and procedural conditions. With consent of both parties, the impugned order was not interfered with on merits, but the cross-examination was restored in the interest of justice. All accompanying applications were disposed of accordingly.
Implications
This order underscores the Delhi High Court’s balanced approach in commercial and civil litigation—upholding procedural discipline while preventing irreparable prejudice. It sends a strong message that while courts may show limited leniency to secure fair adjudication, such indulgence will come at a tangible cost and with zero tolerance for further delay. The ruling is particularly relevant in cases involving foreign witnesses, highlighting judicial sensitivity to inconvenience caused to witnesses due to procedural lapses.
Case law references
- Principles on closure of cross-examination
Courts recognise cross-examination as a vital right but permit its closure to curb delay, subject to higher courts’ discretion to restore it on strict conditions to secure justice.
FAQs
1. Can a High Court restore cross-examination after it is closed by a trial court?
Yes. Even if the trial court’s order is legally sound, the High Court may restore cross-examination in exceptional cases to prevent prejudice, usually on strict conditions.
2. Is cross-examination an absolute right?
No. While fundamental to fair trial, it can be curtailed where parties misuse procedure or cause delay.
3. What kind of conditions can courts impose for restoring cross-examination?
Courts may impose heavy costs, reimbursement of witness expenses, and grant only a final opportunity without scope for extension.
