Right to cross-examine cannot be closed on technical grounds when counsel's absence is for sufficient cause.

The plaintiffs/respondents filed a civil suit (RCSA No. 544/2022) seeking a declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding agricultural lands in Village Parsen, Gwalior.

On 23.03.2026, the Trial Court closed the defendants' right to cross-examine the plaintiffs' witness and adduce evidence because their counsel failed to appear.

The counsel’s absence was attributed to a family accident for which an FIR had been lodged.

The petitioners challenged this order under Article 227 of the Constitution, arguing that the denial of cross-examination on the first effective opportunity was arbitrary.

1. Whether the Trial Court’s order closing the defendants' right to cross-examine and lead evidence due to the absence of counsel constituted a failure to exercise judicial discretion under the principles of natural justice.

Article 227 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court's power of superintendence over subordinate courts.

Procedural law is a handmaid of justice intended to advance its cause rather than defeat it on technical grounds.

The right of cross-examination is a valuable legal right, the denial of which causes serious prejudice to the defense.

Order XVII Rule 1 of the CPC regarding the discretionary power to grant adjournments upon a showing of "sufficient cause".

The High Court observed that the petitioners had established "sufficient cause" for the non-appearance of their counsel, specifically a family emergency involving an accident and related police proceedings.

The court noted that the Trial Court adopted an "unduly strict approach" by closing the defendants' rights on the very first effective opportunity for cross-examination.

By comparing the Trial Court’s subsequent grant of an adjournment to the plaintiffs on health grounds, the Court inferred that the rigid denial to the defendants was inconsistent with the interest of justice.

The Court reasoned that to ensure a fair trial, the defendants must be afforded a final opportunity to present their case, albeit balanced with a cost penalty to compensate the respondents for the delay.

The Court set aside the impugned order dated 23.03.2026 and allowed the petition subject to the petitioners paying costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondents within three weeks.

The Trial Court was directed to fix a specific date for one final, effective opportunity for the defendants to cross-examine the witness and adduce evidence, clarifying that no further adjournments would be permitted.