1. Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging two trial court orders—one closing the plaintiff’s opportunity to further cross-examine a defence witness, and another rejecting a recall application. The Court held that the plaintiff’s persistent pattern of adjournments, non-payment of imposed costs, and inaccurate submissions amounted to deliberate protraction of a suit pending since 2006, now at its “fag end.”
The Court emphasised that adjournments and pass-overs are privileges, not entitlements, and that counsel cannot assume a “matter of right” to delay proceedings. The Court also strongly deprecated false representations regarding counsel’s availability. Finding no infirmity or perversity in the trial court’s orders, the petition was dismissed with ₹10,000 costs payable within two weeks.
2. Facts
The underlying civil suit, instituted in 2006, had reached the stage of cross-examination of defence witnesses. On 01.08.2025, the case was listed for cross-examination of DW1. The plaintiff’s counsel did not appear and instead sought an adjournment—first claiming counsel illness, and when asked for supporting documents, shifting to “family exigency.”
The trial court noted that a previous adjournment had been granted on 08.05.2025 subject to costs of ₹5,000, but the plaintiff had neither paid the cost nor applied for waiver. In these circumstances, and given the long history of delays, the trial court closed the further cross-examination of DW1.
On 11.08.2025, after DW2 and DW3 were fully examined, the plaintiff moved an application seeking recall of the 01.08.2025 order, citing “personal difficulty” of counsel. The trial court rejected the application, noting the plaintiff’s repeated earlier adjournments and the long pendency of the matter. The plaintiff thereafter invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction.
3. Issues
The High Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the trial court erred in closing the plaintiff’s further cross-examination of DW1.
- Whether the plaintiff’s alleged request for a “pass-over till 2:30 PM” was supported by the record.
- Whether failure to pay earlier costs under Section 35B CPC justified the trial court’s decision.
- Whether the recall application was rightly rejected.
- Whether the plaintiff was engaging in conduct intended to delay disposal of a nearly two-decade-old suit.
4. Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioner argued that the trial court should have granted a short pass-over on 01.08.2025 to allow counsel to appear later in the day. It was contended that denying a pass-over deprived the plaintiff of a fair opportunity to cross-examine DW1, especially since DW1 was the primary defendant.
Counsel asserted that the interest of justice required giving at least one more opportunity to complete the cross-examination, and that the subsequent recall application ought to have been allowed. No other substantive arguments were advanced.
5. Respondents’ arguments
The respondents strongly opposed the petition, producing multiple trial court orders to demonstrate a consistent pattern of the plaintiff seeking adjournments and pass-overs at nearly every hearing. They argued that:
• the plaintiff had already been granted multiple opportunities;
• costs imposed earlier had not been complied with;
• repeated excuses were made for counsel’s absence; and
• the suit, pending since 2006, was being intentionally delayed.
They submitted that the trial court’s orders were fair, proportionate, and necessary to ensure expeditious justice.
6. Analysis of the law
A. Section 35B CPC and consequences of non-payment of costs
The High Court held that the trial court acted squarely within the framework of Section 35B CPC, which empowers courts to impose costs for delay and prescribes consequences for non-compliance. Relying on the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Manohar Singh v. D.S. Sharma (2010) 1 SCC 53, the Court highlighted that a trial court may, in appropriate circumstances, bar further participation if costs are not paid. Here, the trial court merely closed cross-examination—not the plaintiff’s entire participation—showing a lenient, discretionary approach.
B. Pass-overs and adjournments are not rights
The Court clarified that pass-overs and adjournments exist to accommodate genuine difficulties, but cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Courts must ensure fairness to both sides and cannot allow delay tactics to undermine justice.
The Court underscored that counsel must maintain proper calendars to avoid repeated non-appearance.
C. False submissions by counsel
The High Court expressed strong disapproval of inconsistent explanations given before the trial court—first citing illness, then a family emergency. Such conduct, the Court observed, reflects a lack of candour and cannot be condoned, especially when used to seek adjournments.
D. Long pendency and repeated delays
The Court reviewed the chronology of adjournments:
• DW1’s chief affidavit supplied on 05.02.2020;
• Chief examination completed on 27.03.2024;
• Adjournments sought on 27.03.2024, 30.08.2024, 06.03.2025, and 08.05.2025;
• Costs imposed on 08.05.2025 remained unpaid;
• Yet another adjournment sought on 01.08.2025.
In light of this pattern, the Court held that the trial court was justified in preventing further delay, and that the recall application lacked merit.
7. Precedent analysis
Though the judgment cites only one Supreme Court ruling, its reasoning is grounded in well-established procedural-law principles:
(a) Manohar Singh v. D.S. Sharma (2010) 1 SCC 53)
• Costs imposed for adjournments must be complied with;
• Non-payment allows courts to restrict further participation;
• Ensuring timely progress of long-pending matters is a legitimate judicial concern.
(b) Jurisprudence on delay and abuse of process
Courts consistently hold that litigants cannot indefinitely delay proceedings. Excessive adjournments, shifting excuses, and failure to comply with orders constitute abuse of court process, justifying adverse procedural consequences.
(c) Fair-trial principles
While cross-examination is vital, fairness extends to both parties. Allowing endless delays undermines efficiency, burdens the system, and prejudices the opposing side.
8. Court’s reasoning
The High Court’s reasoning may be summarised as follows:
- The plaintiff repeatedly sought adjournments over several years, despite having ample notice and receiving copies of chief examination well in advance.
- The trial court justifiably refused further indulgence because prior costs were neither paid nor challenged.
- The claim that a “pass-over till 2:30 PM” was sought is not supported by the trial court’s order, which records only a request for adjournment.
- The plaintiff’s counsel provided contradictory reasons for absence, undermining credibility.
- The recall application ignored the plaintiff’s history of delay and failed to show exceptional circumstances.
- The trial court’s approach was balanced—it allowed DW2 and DW3 to be examined and did not terminate the plaintiff’s participation entirely.
- No perversity, illegality, or violation of natural justice was found.
Thus, both impugned orders were upheld.
9. Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the trial court’s decisions closing further cross-examination of DW1 and rejecting the recall application. The Court concluded that the plaintiff’s conduct amounted to deliberate delay and that judicial patience cannot indefinitely accommodate procedural abuse. The Court imposed ₹10,000 costs payable to the respondents within two weeks.
10. Implications
This ruling reinforces critical procedural principles:
• Courts may close cross-examination when litigants misuse adjournments.
• Costs must be honoured, or procedural consequences will follow.
• Counsel cannot rely on routine pass-overs as a right.
• Delay tactics in long-pending suits will face judicial resistance.
• Recall applications cannot be used to overturn justified procedural orders.
The judgment strengthens the jurisprudence on preventing abuse of process and promoting expeditious trial management.
CASE-LAW REFERENCES
• Manohar Singh v. D.S. Sharma (2010) 1 SCC 53 — Interprets Section 35B CPC; permits restricting participation for non-payment of costs.
• Procedural-delay jurisprudence — affirms courts’ authority to curtail dilatory tactics in the interest of timely justice.
FAQs
1. Can a court close cross-examination if costs are not paid?
Yes. Under Section 35B CPC, non-payment of imposed costs allows a court to restrict further participation, including closing cross-examination.
2. Are pass-overs a legal right?
No. Courts clarified that pass-overs and adjournments are discretionary courtesies, not entitlements.
3. When can a recall application against closure orders be allowed?
Only in exceptional circumstances showing genuine inability—not where the litigant has a long history of adjournments or has ignored cost orders.