Article 227 relief is unwarranted where a litigant deliberately delays cross-examination despite repeated opportunities.

The petitioner invoked Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the order dated 27 July 2026 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, South District, Saket Courts, in HMA No. 1770/2025.

The Family Court had dismissed the petitioner’s application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC seeking recall of the respondent/PW-1 for cross-examination.

The case had been pending since 12 March 2012.

Pursuant to a consent order, a Local Commissioner was appointed to record evidence, with the petitioner’s evidence scheduled between 11 May and 10 June 2026 and the respondent’s evidence between 11 June and 17 July 2026.

The Local Commissioner reported that, despite repeated opportunities, the petitioner and her counsel failed to appear for cross-examination of PW-1; consequently, the cross-examination was recorded as “Nil. Opportunity given”.

The petitioner also failed to provide dates for her own evidence.

The High Court explored an expeditious resolution, but the respondent offered to permit cross-examination provided it was completed within one month, whereas the petitioner sought to defer it for six months on the ground that her father was awaiting a liver transplant.

Whether the Family Court erred in refusing to recall the respondent/PW-1 for cross-examination under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC on the grounds of alleged denial of natural justice and insufficient opportunity.

Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with the Family Court’s order.

Whether the petitioner’s insistence on postponing cross-examination for six months, despite an offer for its prompt completion, justified the grant of discretionary relief.

The Court applied Article 227 of the Constitution, under which the High Court exercises limited supervisory jurisdiction and does not ordinarily interfere unless the subordinate court has acted without jurisdiction, committed a patent error, or caused manifest injustice.

Section 151 CPC preserves the court’s inherent powers, but such powers cannot be used to facilitate delay or to circumvent procedural discipline.

Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC permits the court to recall a witness for examination, but recall is discretionary and cannot be claimed as an automatic right, particularly where the party seeking recall has repeatedly failed to utilise earlier opportunities.

The Court also accepted that a Local Commissioner appointed to record evidence could close cross-examination where the concerned party failed to appear despite opportunities.

The principles of natural justice require a meaningful opportunity of hearing, but do not require indefinite or repeated opportunities to a party who has been given sufficient chances and has failed to avail them.

The High Court found that the petitioner had been given repeated opportunities to cross-examine PW-1 but had failed to appear before the Local Commissioner, resulting in the cross-examination being closed.

The petitioner had likewise failed to cooperate in scheduling and presenting her own evidence, as reflected in the Local Commissioner’s interim and final reports.

The Family Court had also considered the age of the proceedings, the petitioner’s conduct, and her failure to comply with directions, including directions issued by the High Court.

Against this background, the petitioner’s request to defer cross-examination for six months was held to be unreasonable, particularly when the respondent had offered to facilitate cross-examination on a day-to-day basis and conclude it within one month.

The Court therefore concluded that the application was not bona fide and appeared designed to delay the matrimonial proceedings.

Since the Trial Court’s order was supported by the record and disclosed no jurisdictional or manifest error, interference under Article 227 was unwarranted.

It held that the petitioner had been afforded sufficient opportunities, that the Local Commissioner was competent to close the cross-examination, and that the proposed six-month deferment was an unjustified attempt to delay the proceedings.

Although the Court observed that the petition warranted dismissal with costs, it exercised restraint and imposed no costs.

The pending application was also disposed of.