A final opportunity to cross-examine may be granted despite prior defaults, subject to strict conditions.

The petitioner-borrower was arrayed as a respondent in disputes brought by a co-operative society under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.

In the respective proceedings, the petitioner sought recall of PW-1 for cross-examination under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

PW-1’s examination-in-chief was recorded on 23 October 2025, and the matter was adjourned for cross-examination on several dates.

After the petitioner did not cross-examine PW-1, the Authority treated cross-examination as given up and proceeded to final arguments.

The petitioner’s applications, filed on 5 June 2026, were rejected by orders dated 4 August 2026, prompting these writ petitions.

On 2 September 2026, the High Court granted a conditional interim opportunity for cross-examination, subject to payment of ₹15,000 as costs.

The petitioner deposited the amount and served the interim order and petition papers on the Society’s counsel.

1. Whether the Authority’s rejection of the petitioner’s applications to recall PW-1 for cross-examination should be set aside

2. Whether the petitioner should receive a further, final opportunity to cross-examine PW-1, subject to conditions

The proceedings before the Authority arose under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, which provides for resolution of specified disputes concerning co-operative societies.

The petitioner invoked Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to seek recall of PW-1 for cross-examination.

The Court’s stated basis for relief was the need to afford the petitioner a fair opportunity to defend the proceedings, balanced against the petitioner’s prior failure to use the opportunities granted; it imposed costs and made the further opportunity final.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Court noted that PW-1 had been available for cross-examination on several dates, and that the petitioner’s failure to proceed reflected a degree of negligence.

Nevertheless, it considered a further opportunity appropriate to ensure a fair chance to defend the proceedings.

The petitioner complied with the interim condition by depositing ₹15,000, and the Society’s counsel had been informed of the interim order.

Since the Authority could proceed with PW-1 present on the next date, keeping the writ petitions pending would serve no purpose other than delaying the proceedings.

The Court therefore set aside the rejection orders while limiting the relief to one last opportunity and prohibiting further adjournments for cross-examination.

The petitioner was granted one final opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 on the next date fixed by the Authority, without seeking an adjournment.

If the petitioner failed to cross-examine PW-1 on that date, no further opportunity would be available.

The petitioner was also directed to lead evidence on the very next hearing date after cross-examination, without seeking an adjournment.