Repeated dilatory conduct justifies closing the right to cross-examine a witness.

The respondent sued to recover ₹5,00,000, alleging that he had transferred the sum to the appellant as a friendly loan in May 2016, repayable within one year.

The appellant admitted receipt of the money but claimed it was repayment of an earlier sum her husband had arranged and lent to the respondent

The trial court decreed recovery of ₹5,00,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing until realization, plus costs

The appellant appealed under Section 96 CPC, contending, among other things, that she had not received sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the respondent or lead evidence

1. Whether the trial court’s closure of the appellant’s right to cross-examine the respondent, and the alleged lack of opportunity to lead defence evidence, warranted setting aside the decree

2. Whether the respondent proved entitlement to recover ₹5,00,000 as a friendly loan, in light of the appellant’s alternative account of the transfer

Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provides for a regular first appeal against a decree.

The court assessed whether the trial court’s decision disclosed sufficient ground for appellate interference.

It also applied the stated burden of proof reflected in the trial court’s issues—entitlement to recovery was to be proved by the plaintiff (OPP)—and considered the evidentiary effect of the respondent’s affidavit evidence where the appellant did not cross-examine him

No precedent was cited.

The High Court found that the trial court had closed cross-examination after recording the appellant’s counsel’s successive requests to adjourn despite the respondent’s imminent departure for Australia

It further noted that the appellant did not request, orally or by application, an opportunity to lead defence evidence and had proceeded to final arguments.

On the merits, the transfer of ₹5,00,000 into the appellant’s account was undisputed.

The respondent’s affidavit supported the loan claim and went untested in cross-examination; the appellant produced no material supporting her assertion that the transfer was repayment of an earlier loan.

The court therefore found no sufficient basis to interfere with the decree

It upheld the judgment and decree for ₹5,00,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the filing of the suit until realization, plus costs, dismissed the appeal, and disposed of the pending applications