A defendant may receive one final opportunity for cross-examination in property disputes, subject to costs.

The plaintiff brought a suit for specific performance.

Defendant No. 1 denied the claim, asserting that the suit property was ancestral and that the sale agreement had been executed only as security.

After his evidence-in-chief was filed by affidavit, he did not appear for cross-examination; the Trial Court treated his evidence as nil and expunged it.

He then sought recall under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC and reopening under Section 151 CPC, relying on ill-health and producing medical documents.

The Trial Court dismissed both applications, citing the opportunities previously granted and the defendant’s conduct.

The High Court noted that earlier applications to recall him for cross-examination had been allowed and that he was present on 20 September 2024 but sought time.

Whether the petitioner had made out grounds for interference with the Trial Court’s order dismissing his applications to recall and reopen the evidence for cross-examination

Whether, despite the petitioner’s prior conduct, an opportunity to submit to cross-examination should be granted in the interests of justice

Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC provides for recall of a witness by the court, while Section 151 CPC preserves the court’s inherent power to make orders necessary for the ends of justice.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution provide the High Court’s writ and supervisory jurisdiction.

The judgment cites no precedent and states no broader test for exercising these powers; it considers the petitioner’s conduct alongside the need to afford an opportunity in a dispute concerning rights in immovable property.

The Trial Court had dismissed the applications because the petitioner had previously received opportunities to appear for cross-examination and had again failed to do so.

The High Court also noted his earlier successful applications for recall and his request for time on 20 September 2024.

Nevertheless, given that the suit concerned valuable rights in immovable property, it held that the interests of justice warranted one further opportunity, subject to strict conditions.

allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 23 September 2024, and remitted the matter to the Trial Court so Defendant No. 1 could be cross-examined.

The opportunity was conditional on payment of ₹50,000 in costs—₹25,000 already deposited to be released to the plaintiff and the balance payable before cross-examination.

No further adjournment was to be granted for that cross-examination, and the Trial Court was requested to dispose of the suit expeditiously.