Right of Cross-Examination Cannot Be Denied on First Adjournment Despite Direction for Expedited Trial

The petitioner (original plaintiff) filed a suit for cancellation of a sale deed, challenging a Benami deed from 1970 and a power of attorney from 2011

Following a previous High Court order dated 10.02.2026, the Trial Court was directed to expedite the suit within six months

On 30.03.2026, Defendant No. 1 filed an examination-in-chief and documents, which were exhibited on 02.04.2026

On 07.04.2026, the plaintiff’s counsel sought an adjournment for cross-examination, citing the voluminous record and the plaintiff's residence in Mumbai

The Trial Court rejected the request (Exh. 172), closed the right to cross-examine, and subsequently closed the right of final arguments, posting the matter for judgment on 23.04.2026

1. Whether the Trial Court’s order closing the plaintiff's right to cross-examine the witness of Defendant No. 1 on the first scheduled date for cross-examination was justified in the interest of justice

2. Whether the mandate to expedite suit proceedings overrides the fundamental procedural right of a party to cross-examine an opposing witness

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court's power of superintendence over subordinate courts

the procedural principles of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, specifically the principle that cross-examination is a substantive right essential for bringing correct facts on record

judicial doctrine that "substantial justice" must prevail over "technical grounds," provided the litigant is not found to be grossly negligent or attempting to stall proceedings

The High Court observed that while the Trial Court was duty-bound to follow the six-month expedition deadline set by the Co-ordinate Bench, such speed should not come at the cost of excluding vital evidence

The court noted that the plaintiff had remained "vigilant and active" throughout the proceedings and that the request for adjournment on 07.04.2026 was the first such instance following the exhibition of documents on 02.04.2026

The court reasoned that a party cannot effectively cross-examine until documents are exhibited to understand the scope of the evidence

It concluded that the plaintiff’s conduct was not so "grave" as to warrant the forfeiture of a substantive right on the very first scheduled date for cross-examination

The Court held that in the interest of justice, the plaintiff must be permitted to cross-examine the witness of Defendant No. 1

The Court directed the plaintiff to conduct the cross-examination on 23.04.2026 without seeking further adjournments and ordered the Trial Court to proceed to judgment thereafter within the original stipulated timeline