Recently, the Delhi High Court refused to interfere with the trial court’s orders closing the plaintiff’s opportunity to further cross-examine a defence witness in a long-pending civil suit, holding that repeated adjournments and non-payment of imposed costs justified such action. In a matter concerning delays caused by a litigant’s conduct, the Court observed that adjournments and pass overs are courtesies, not rights, and cannot be misused to prejudice the opposite party.
Brief Facts:
The dispute arose from a civil suit filed many years ago. During the stage of defence evidence, the plaintiff sought several adjournments when the defendant himself appeared for cross-examination. Despite costs being imposed on the plaintiff for earlier delays, neither were they paid nor was any request made for waiver. On the scheduled date, the plaintiff again sought time, which led the trial court to close the opportunity for further cross-examination. A subsequent application seeking recall of this order was also rejected. Aggrieved by both orders, the plaintiff approached the High Court.
Contentions:
The counsel for the petitioner argued that a fair opportunity to cross-examine DW1 was denied and that the trial court ought to have granted a pass over on the scheduled date. It was submitted that the matter required indulgence since DW1 was the defendant himself. No other substantial ground was raised.
Whereas, the respondents strongly opposed the petition and submitted that the plaintiff had been deliberately delaying the proceedings. They produced several past orders to show that adjournments and pass overs were consistently sought on behalf of the plaintiff. They argued that the trial court’s approach was justified given the prolonged pendency of the suit.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the record did not support the petitioner’s claim of seeking a brief pass over. Instead, the order showed that an adjournment, not a pass over, had been requested. The Court found that inconsistent reasons, first citing illness of the main counsel and then a family exigency, were furnished, and observed that such falsehood from a counsel stood deprecated.
While emphasising the consequences of non-payment of costs earlier imposed, the Court relied on the principle under Section 35B CPC, noting that the trial court could have even prohibited the plaintiff from participating in further proceedings, as recognised in Manohar Singh v. D.S. Sharma. Still, the trial court adopted a lenient view by posting the matter for recording the remaining defence evidence.
The Court observed a consistent pattern where the plaintiff repeatedly sought adjournments across multiple dates despite having the affidavit-in-chief in advance. The Court stressed, “Pass overs are not a matter of right. They are courtesies extended by the court and cannot be permitted to cause hardship to the opposite side.”
It further noted that DW1 had been partly cross-examined and that the plaintiff failed to justify non-payment of costs or the repeated delays.
The decision of the Court:
Finding no infirmity in the trial court’s approach, the Court upheld both impugned orders. The petition was dismissed with costs of ₹10,000, to be paid by the plaintiff to the respondents within two weeks.
Case Title: M/S EC Constructions P Ltd vs. Neeraj Zutshi and Anr.
Case No.: CM(M) 1683/2025
Coram: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Prabhjyot Singh
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Sahil Gupta, Arjun Aggarwal
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
