Article 227 does not permit interference with cross-examination decisions absent grave injustice or perversity.

The petitioner challenged the Trial Court’s order dated 9 September 2026 refusing to defer the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2.

The petitioner argued that PW-1 had stated he did not know how the legal cell learned in 2017 and 2020 that the defendant school was operating, and that he might provide the information after checking the legal-cell records.

The petitioner sought time for the witnesses to produce those records and offered to limit cross-examination to questions left unanswered because the records were unavailable.

The Trial Court had afforded the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on the evidence produced in examination-in-chief.

1. Whether the Trial Court’s refusal to defer cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses warranted interference under the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the witnesses’ failure to produce the referenced legal-cell records required the cross-examination to be deferred so that those records could be produced.

Article 227 confers supervisory, not appellate, jurisdiction: the High Court does not reappreciate evidence or correct every factual or legal error, and interference is generally warranted only for grave dereliction of duty, flagrant violation of fundamental principles, or a finding unsupported by evidence or so perverse that no reasonable person could reach it (Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97, quoted at para. 8; Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181, quoted at para. 9).

Section 114, illustration (g), of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits the court to presume that evidence which could have been, but was not, produced would be unfavourable to the person withholding it.

The Court distinguished Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Leo Readlines Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4464, and Sunita v. Premwati, 2022 6 High Court Cases (Del) 537, as factually different.

The petitioner had been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on the evidence in their examination-in-chief, and the Trial Court’s decision not to defer cross-examination did not disclose a grave dereliction or other ground for supervisory intervention.

The Court held that any failure to produce records referred to by a witness could be considered by the Trial Court at the appropriate stage, including by drawing an inference under Section 114, illustration (g), if warranted; that possibility did not require postponing cross-examination.

The authorities relied on by the petitioner did not alter that conclusion because their circumstances were distinct.

It dismissed the petition and all pending applications.