Delhi High Court Upholds Trial Court's Decision to Close Cross-Examination in Prolonged Civil Suit

Court Dismisses Petitioner's Appeal, Imposes Costs for Delays and False Submissions

In a recent judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court, Justice Girish Kathpalia upheld the trial court's decision to close the opportunity for further cross-examination of a key witness in a civil suit that has been pending since 2006. The case, M/s EC Constructions P Ltd v. Neeraj Zutshi and Ors., highlighted issues of procedural delays and the responsibility of legal counsel in managing court proceedings.

The petitioner, M/s EC Constructions P Ltd, challenged the trial court's orders dated August 1, 2025, and August 11, 2025, which effectively closed the cross-examination of the defendant's witness, DW1, due to repeated adjournments and the non-payment of previously imposed costs. The trial court had determined that the petitioner was deliberately delaying the proceedings, and the High Court found no reason to overturn this decision.

The petitioner's counsel argued that a fair opportunity for cross-examination was denied on August 1, 2025, when a pass-over request was allegedly not granted. However, the High Court noted that the request was for an adjournment, not a pass-over, and highlighted inconsistencies in the reasons provided for the adjournment request.

Justice Kathpalia emphasized that adjournments and pass-overs are courtesies extended by the court and not rights of the counsel. The court criticized the petitioner for false submissions and for failing to pay the cost of Rs. 5,000 imposed for a previous adjournment. The High Court noted that the trial court had exercised discretion by not completely barring the petitioner from further proceedings, in line with Section 35B of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

The High Court's decision reiterated the importance of legal counsel maintaining their schedules to avoid causing undue suffering to the opposing party. The court found the petitioner's actions amounted to deliberate protraction of the suit, leading to an additional cost of Rs. 10,000 being imposed on the petitioner.

This judgment underscores the judiciary's stance on ensuring timely justice and discouraging unnecessary delays in legal proceedings. The case will now proceed towards final arguments, with the trial court expected to reach a conclusion in the near future.

Bottom Line:

Adjournments and pass overs are courtesies extended by the court to accommodate counsel, but cannot be allowed to cause undue suffering to the opposite side.

Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 35B

M/s EC Constructions P Ltd v. Neeraj Zutshi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2809483