1. Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging two trial-court orders that (i) closed the plaintiff’s opportunity to further cross-examine a defence witness and (ii) rejected a recall application. The Court held that the plaintiff repeatedly sought adjournments, failed to pay earlier costs, and made inconsistent and false submissions before the trial court. In a suit pending since 2006, such conduct amounted to deliberate protraction, justifying the trial court’s strict approach.
The Court stressed that adjournments and pass-overs are judicial courtesies, not entitlements, and that counsel must maintain diaries and ensure the opposing side is not prejudiced. Finding no infirmity or perversity, the petition was dismissed with ₹10,000 costs.
2. Facts
The underlying civil suit, filed in 2006, had reached the stage of cross-examination of DW1—the defendant himself. On 01.08.2025, the matter came up for further cross-examination. The plaintiff sought an adjournment, offering first the ground of counsel’s illness and then, when asked for medical proof, changing the reason to “family exigency.”
The trial court noted that earlier, on 08.05.2025, an adjournment had been granted on costs of ₹5,000, which the plaintiff neither paid nor sought waiver for. Consequently, the trial court closed the plaintiff’s opportunity to further cross-examine DW1.
On 11.08.2025, after DW2 and DW3 were examined, the plaintiff moved an application to recall the order dated 01.08.2025, alleging that counsel faced “personal difficulty.” The trial court, citing repeated adjournments across several dates, rejected the recall application.
Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed this petition under Article 227.
3. Issues
The High Court examined:
- Whether the trial court wrongly refused a “pass-over” on 01.08.2025.
- Whether closure of cross-examination was justified in light of the unpaid costs.
- Whether recurring adjournments amounted to abuse of process.
- Whether the recall application should have been allowed.
- Whether the impugned orders suffered from any perversity warranting supervisory interference.
4. Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioner argued that the trial court should have granted a pass-over until 2:30 PM on 01.08.2025 to permit counsel to appear. It was contended that denial of such a short accommodation violated principles of fair trial, particularly since DW1 was the principal defendant.
The petitioner presented no other substantial arguments, relying entirely on the assertion that the trial court failed to grant a routine indulgence.
5. Respondents’ arguments
The respondents strongly opposed the petition, producing multiple previous orders to show a sustained pattern of adjournment-seeking behaviour by the plaintiff. They argued that:
• the plaintiff consistently delayed the suit for years;
• significant opportunities to cross-examine had already been availed;
• the plaintiff failed to pay imposed costs;
• false statements were made on multiple dates;
• the suit was at the “fag end,” and indulgence would prejudice the defendants.
The respondents submitted the trial court acted fairly, proportionately, and consistent with statutory discipline.
6. Analysis of the law
A. Section 35B CPC — Consequence of non-payment of costs
The Court emphasized that under Section 35B CPC, when an adjournment is granted on costs, the defaulting party must either pay the cost or seek waiver. Non-compliance allows the court to restrict that party’s further participation.
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Manohar Singh v. D.S. Sharma (2010) 1 SCC 53, which clarifies that courts may prohibit further participation if costs remain unpaid. The trial court here adopted a far more lenient approach by merely closing cross-examination, rather than barring the plaintiff entirely.
B. Adjournments and pass-overs are only courtesies
The Court rejected the petitioner’s claim that pass-over was sought, noting the trial court record reflected only an application for adjournment, not pass-over.
It held:
“Pass-overs and adjournments are courtesies, not rights. Counsel must maintain diaries so the opposite side does not suffer.”
C. False submissions before court
The High Court strongly deprecated the contradictory excuses—first illness, then family emergency—stating that counsel cannot take inconsistent stands to obtain adjournments.
D. Chronic delay in a 2006 suit
The Court outlined a clear pattern:
• 27.03.2024 — adjournment after chief examination.
• 30.08.2024 — adjournment after partial cross.
• 06.03.2025 — adjournment again.
• 08.05.2025 — adjournment with ₹5,000 costs.
• 01.08.2025 — non-payment of cost; false submissions; counsel absent.
Given this history, the Court held the plaintiff was deliberately prolonging the case.
7. Precedent analysis
The Court relied explicitly and implicitly on the following jurisprudence:
(a) Manohar Singh v. D.S. Sharma
Clarifies the scope of Section 35B CPC:
• Courts may impose conditions for adjournment;
• Non-compliance permits imposing consequences, including barring further participation;
• Courts must manage trials efficiently.
(b) Procedural-delay cases
Courts consistently hold that litigants cannot weaponize adjournments to obstruct justice. Long-pending suits require stricter discipline.
(c) Fair-trial jurisprudence
Cross-examination is vital, but fairness extends equally to defendants who should not suffer endless delays.
8. Court’s reasoning
The High Court upheld both orders for the following reasons:
- Record contradicts petitioner’s claim — There was no request for pass-over; only adjournment was sought.
- False submissions — The inconsistent reasons offered (illness vs family issue) undermined credibility.
- Unpaid costs — The petitioner neither paid earlier costs nor sought waiver.
- Multiple adjournments — A sustained pattern of delay was established.
- No prejudice to petitioner — DW1 had partially been cross-examined; DW2 and DW3 were fully examined.
- Recall application lacked merit — It ignored the historical pattern and offered no exceptional circumstances.
- No perversity — The trial court acted fairly, responsibly, and in furtherance of expeditious justice.
Thus, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld both orders.
9. Conclusion
The High Court affirmed that the trial court was justified in closing DW1’s cross-examination and rejecting the recall application due to repeated adjournments and non-payment of earlier costs. The petition was dismissed with ₹10,000 costs, payable within two weeks.
10. Implications
This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to curbing procedural abuse:
• Adjournments are not entitlements.
• Costs orders must be respected or consequences follow.
• False submissions by counsel attract judicial disapproval.
• Chronic delay can justify closure of cross-examination.
• Recall applications cannot revive opportunities lost through litigant misconduct.
The judgment strengthens court management discipline and discourages dilatory tactics in long-pending suits.
CASE-LAW REFERENCES
Manohar Singh v. D.S. Sharma (2010) 1 SCC 53 — Non-payment of costs can justify restricting further participation.
Principles on abuse of process — Courts must prevent litigants from treating adjournments as routine entitlements.
FAQs
1. Can a court close cross-examination if costs from previous adjournments are unpaid?
Yes. Section 35B CPC permits restricting participation when imposed costs are not honoured.
2. Are pass-overs a matter of right in civil trials?
No. Pass-overs are discretionary courtesies, not enforceable rights.
3. Can contradictory excuses by counsel justify adverse orders?
Yes. False or inconsistent submissions undermine credibility and justify judicial firmness.