Right to further cross-examination must be granted upon framing additional issues following an amendment of pleadings.

The underlying dispute concerns the ownership and possession of Shop No. 45-A, Khan Market, New Delhi.

The Petitioners (defendants) are contesting a suit for declaration and mesne profits filed by the Respondent (plaintiff).

After the plaintiff’s evidence was concluded, the Trial Court allowed an amendment to the plaint on 15.03.2022, specifically changing the claim for damages from a lump sum to "Rs. 2,00,000/- per month".

Consequently, on 07.05.2025, the Trial Court framed three additional issues (6A, 6B, and 6C) regarding the monthly damages, court fees, and limitation.

The Petitioners sought to recall the plaintiff’s witnesses for limited cross-examination on these new issues.

The Trial Court dismissed this request via orders dated 29.10.2025 and 20.02.2026, reasoning that the Petitioners had already cross-examined the plaintiff after the amendment was allowed in 2022.

The Petitioners challenged these orders before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether, after framing additional issues arising from an amended plaint, the Trial Court was justified in declining the defendants a limited opportunity to cross-examine witnesses on those specific issues.

Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which grants the court discretion to recall and examine witnesses.

Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) regarding the court’s power to amend or frame additional issues necessary for determining the controversy.

Fundamental principle of Natural Justice: the right to cross-examination is an integral component of a fair trial and not a mere procedural formality.

Article 227 of the Constitution of India: supervisory jurisdiction to correct a patent error in the lower court’s exercise of discretion.

The High Court found that the Trial Court's framing of additional issues on 07.05.2025 was a "clear acknowledgment" that fresh questions requiring adjudication had arisen.

The Court reasoned that once new issues are introduced, parties are entitled to test evidence specifically directed at those issues, as the previous cross-examination (conducted in 2022) could not have anticipated issues that did not exist at that stage.

The Court rejected the Respondent's argument that the amendment was merely clerical, noting that the Trial Court had consciously framed new issues on limitation and court fees based on the "per month" claim.

The Court found the order of 20.02.2026 legally flawed because it failed to distinguish between the general cross-examination allowed in 2022 and the specific need to address the new legal issues framed in 2025.

The Petitioners are entitled to an effective but strictly limited opportunity to further cross-examine the Respondent’s witnesses solely on the additional issues (6A, 6B, and 6C) framed on 07.05.2025.

The Court directed the Trial Court to assign a date for this examination on 07.08.2026 and to conclude the exercise within one month, prohibiting the Petitioners from revisiting matters covered in earlier examinations.