Karnataka HC Gives Milk Society One Final Chance To Cross-Examine Witness After Senior Counsel Fell Ill

A dispute was pending before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (ARCS).

On 24 March 2026, when the matter was listed for evidence, junior counsel for the party seeking to cross-examine PW1 informed the ARCS that senior counsel was unwell and sought time.

The ARCS declined the request and recorded that cross-examination was “Nil.”

An application seeking permission to cross-examine PW1 was filed on 6 April 2026 and rejected on 13 July 2026, without reasons recorded in the order sheet.

The petitioner sought writ relief, including permission to cross-examine PW1; it did not press its separate prayer under Section 29G(2).

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, under which it may issue a writ of certiorari to quash the challenged orders.

The Court applied the procedural principle that, in the circumstances of this case, a party should receive a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine a witness, and that a request for time supported by counsel’s reported illness should be given due consideration.

No precedent or specific statutory rule governing cross-examination was cited.

The petitioner’s prayer under Section 29G(2) was not pressed and was not decided.

The ARCS had been informed on 24 March 2026 that senior counsel was unwell, yet denied time and closed PW1’s cross-examination.

The Court considered that circumstance, the subsequent attempt to obtain permission to cross-examine, and the absence of any recorded reason for rejecting the application on 13 July 2026.

Although the application did not specifically seek to set aside the 24 March order, the Court found that the circumstances warranted one final opportunity to cross-examine PW1.

It directed the ARCS to permit cross-examination of PW1, treating it as a final opportunity, and required the parties to proceed without unnecessary adjournments.

If the party granted the opportunity failed to comply, the ARCS was directed to proceed and dispose of the dispute expeditiously.