Cross-examination — Closure of opportunity — One final opportunity — Grant of costs. Where party failed to cross-examine defence witness despite earlier opportunities, High Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 granted one final opportunity for cross-examination subject to payment of costs, holding that denial of opportunity would cause grave prejudice and that interests of justice would be adequately balanced by compensating opposite party through costs. (Paras 6 to 8)

advocatemmmohan

Delhi High Court held that 

Constitution of India — Art.227 — Supervisory jurisdiction — Cross-examination — Closure of opportunity — One final opportunity — Grant of costs.

Where party failed to cross-examine defence witness despite earlier opportunities, High Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 granted one final opportunity for cross-examination subject to payment of costs, holding that denial of opportunity would cause grave prejudice and that interests of justice would be adequately balanced by compensating opposite party through costs.
(Paras 6 to 8)

---

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Procedural law — Opportunity to lead evidence and cross-examination — Approach of Court.

Procedural rules are intended to advance cause of justice. Opportunity to cross-examine material witness may be granted upon terms where refusal would result in prejudice and inconvenience caused to opposite party can be compensated monetarily.
(Para 8)

---

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Petitioner invoked supervisory jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of Constitution challenging orders passed by Trial Court dismissing applications for bringing additional documents on record and for striking off defence.
2. During hearing before High Court, petitioner confined relief only to grant of opportunity to cross-examine DW-1.
3. Petitioner contended that denial of opportunity to cross-examine defence witness would cause grave prejudice to its case.
4. Respondents opposed petition contending that sufficient opportunities had already been granted earlier and petitioner failed to avail same.
5. High Court considered rival submissions and examined whether further opportunity ought to be granted in interests of justice.

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

The High Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in relation to procedural orders passed by the Trial Court.

The Court noticed that though the petitioner had earlier failed to cross-examine DW-1 despite opportunities granted by the Trial Court, complete denial of opportunity to cross-examine the witness could seriously prejudice adjudication of the petitioner’s case.

The Court adopted a balanced procedural approach by recognizing two competing considerations:

• necessity to avoid prejudice caused by denial of cross-examination; and
• need to compensate opposite party for delay and inconvenience caused by repeated defaults.

The judgment reflects settled procedural jurisprudence that rules of procedure are intended to facilitate adjudication on merits and not to defeat substantive justice.

Accordingly, while disapproving petitioner’s earlier conduct, the Court held that interests of justice would be sufficiently protected by granting one final opportunity for cross-examination subject to payment of costs to respondents.

The Court therefore granted a single effective opportunity to cross-examine DW-1 upon payment of Rs.3,000/- as costs.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, High Court may grant one final opportunity to cross-examine a witness despite earlier defaults by the party, where denial of such opportunity would cause grave prejudice to adjudication of the case, and inconvenience caused to opposite party can be adequately compensated by imposition of costs.