A two-year delay in seeking recall of a witness can justify refusing to reopen cross-examination.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner’s counsel’s unavailability when PW5 was to be cross-examined justified granting a further opportunity to cross-examine the witness

The court held

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with the trial court’s order rejecting I.A. Nos. 48 and 49.

It also directed

The petitioner was therefore not permitted to recall PW5 or reopen the stage of cross-examination.

01Facts

In O.S. No. 799/2014, PW5’s cross-examination was taken as “nil” on 28 March 2024 because the petitioner’s counsel was unavailable.

¶ 1–2 · pp. 6–8

The petitioner later sought to recall PW5 for cross-examination under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC and to reopen the stage under Section 151 CPC. The applications, filed on 26 February 2026, were rejected by the trial court on 1 June 2026. The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶ 1–2, 4 · pp. 6–8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner’s counsel’s unavailability when PW5 was to be cross-examined justified granting a further opportunity to cross-examine the witness

¶ 4 · p. 7

ii.2. Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the trial court’s refusal to recall PW5 and reopen cross-examination, given that the applications were filed more than two years after the cross-examination was taken as “nil”

¶ 4.1 · p. 8

03Law Applied

The applications invoked Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, concerning the court’s power to recall a witness, and Section 151 CPC, preserving the court’s inherent powers. The petition invoked Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶ 1 · p. 6

The judgment applied no cited precedent or separately articulated statutory test; it assessed whether the delay and its consequences justified the requested opportunity and interference with the trial court’s reasoned order.

¶ 4.1 · p. 8

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that counsel’s unavailability on 28 March 2024 could be a justifiable reason for allowing another opportunity to cross-examine PW5. However, the petitioner did not seek recall until 26 February 2026—more than two years later.

¶ 4 · p. 7

The Court found that permitting cross-examination at that stage would harass the opposing party, prejudice the parties’ rights, and amount to an abuse of process. Because the trial court had issued a reasoned order rejecting the applications, the Court found no justification to interfere.

¶ 4.1 · p. 8