Article 227 relief is unwarranted where repeated opportunities preceded closure of cross-examination.

The Petitioner challenged, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the order dated 01.11.2025 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, North-West District, Rohini, Delhi, in HMA No. 1214/2017.

The Family Court had dismissed the Petitioner’s application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking recall of the order dated 13.10.2025, by which his right to further cross-examine RW-1 had been closed.

RW-1 had been examined in chief on 09.12.2024; cross-examination commenced on 03.02.2025 but remained incomplete at the Petitioner’s instance.

On 19.05.2025, although RW-1 was present, the Petitioner’s counsel sought a pass-over, and the matter was adjourned.

On 13.10.2025, fixed as the last and final opportunity, neither the Petitioner nor his counsel appeared, resulting in closure of the right to cross-examine RW-1.

The Petitioner attributed the absence to his counsel’s heavy cause list and contended that one further opportunity, subject to costs, ought to be granted.

The Family Court also recorded repeated defaults by the Petitioner in leading his own evidence and the delay in prosecuting the proceedings.

Whether the Family Court erred in refusing to recall the order closing the Petitioner’s right to further cross-examine RW-1, when the Petitioner’s counsel was absent on account of a heavy cause list.

Whether the High Court ought to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to grant the Petitioner one final opportunity to complete the cross-examination.

Whether the Petitioner’s delay in approaching the High Court and his previous conduct in the proceedings disentitled him to discretionary relief.

The Court applied Article 227 of the Constitution, which confers limited supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts and is exercised where there is perversity, material irregularity, or failure to exercise jurisdiction, rather than to reappreciate every discretionary procedural order.

It considered Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, under which a court may recall a witness or invoke its inherent procedural powers where necessary to secure the ends of justice; however, such relief is discretionary and cannot be claimed as an automatic right after repeated opportunities or deliberate/prolonged default.

The Court further applied the principle that the right to cross-examine may be closed after sufficient opportunity has been granted, particularly where the matter was fixed as a last and final opportunity, and that a litigant’s conduct and unexplained delay are relevant to the grant of discretionary relief.

The High Court held that the Family Court had not rejected the recall application solely because of the Petitioner’s absence on 13.10.2025.

It had considered the entire procedural history, including the partial cross-examination of RW-1, the Petitioner’s requests for adjournments and pass-over, the prior opportunities granted, and the fact that 13.10.2025 was expressly fixed as the last and final opportunity.

The Court further relied on the Petitioner’s repeated defaults in leading his own evidence and his general delay in prosecuting the matrimonial proceedings.

In that context, the explanation that counsel was occupied by a heavy cause list did not constitute sufficient justification for recalling the closure order.

Since the Family Court had exercised its procedural discretion after granting adequate opportunities, and no perversity or material irregularity was demonstrated, Article 227 jurisdiction was not warranted.

The Petitioner’s considerable and inadequately explained delay in approaching the High Court reinforced the refusal of relief.

It found no perversity, material irregularity, or denial of sufficient opportunity in the Family Court’s refusal to recall the order closing the Petitioner’s right to further cross-examine RW-1.

The Petition under Article 227 was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the pending applications were disposed of accordingly.