Interests of justice warrant reopening cross-examination and defense evidence where delay was caused by medical incapacity.

The Petitioner (original defendant) was sued by the Respondent for the recovery of Rs. 1,20,00,000.

After the plaintiff filed an affidavit-in-chief on April 4, 2022, the Petitioner failed to cross-examine him, leading the Trial Court to close the right to cross-examination.

This right was reopened once on February 17, 2025, subject to a cost of Rs. 20,000.

Following a change of counsel and subsequent requests for adjournment, the Trial Court again closed the Petitioner's right to cross-examine and lead evidence on April 15, 2025.

The Petitioner moved the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution after the Trial Court rejected applications Exh. 116 and 117 to reopen the proceedings.

1. Whether the Trial Court’s refusal to reopen the stage of cross-examination and permit the defendant to lead evidence amounted to a miscarriage of justice given the petitioner's medical and personal circumstances.

2. Whether the court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to restore the defendant's right to participate in the trial subject to strict conditions.

Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which grants the High Court power of superintendence over subordinate courts.

Order 18 Rule 4 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the recording of evidence and cross-examination.

The principle that while procedural discipline is necessary, a "justice-oriented" approach should be adopted to ensure that technicalities do not result in substantive injustice, especially when a party presents medical evidence of incapacity.

The Court observed that the Petitioner had been negligent and was not pursuing the matter seriously, as evidenced by the fact that the right to cross-examine had been closed and reopened once previously.

The Petitioner produced medical evidence showing he suffered from paralysis for three months starting in January 2025 and was also in judicial custody for six months.

The Court noted that these medical treatment papers supported the Petitioner’s claim of being unable to give instructions to his counsel.

Balancing the need for a speedy trial (the suit being from 2015) with the adversarial principle of a fair hearing, the Court determined that the larger interest of justice required granting one final opportunity to the Petitioner, provided the Respondent was compensated with costs and the trial was expedited.

The Petitioner is permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff and lead his own evidence, subject to the payment of a cost of Rs. 25,000 to be deposited with DLSA, Surat within one week.

The Court specifically directed that cross-examination must be concluded within one month and mandated the Trial Court to expedite and conclude the 2015 suit as quickly as possible without unnecessary adjournments.