Rabi Ghosh Vs Jayanta Kumar Ghosh — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rabi Ghosh Vs Jayanta Kumar Ghosh — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court's order dated 10.05.2024 closing the petitioner's opportunity for further cross examination of the respondent should be interfered with, i.e., whether the petitioner deserves one more opportunity to cross examine the respondent even if subject to cost.

Ratio / Principle

The correctness of the circumstances as narrated in the impugned order was not disputed by either side, and it is on the basis of those circumstances and the petitioner's conduct that the trial court considered it fit not to extend further indulgence.

Key takeaways

The right to cross examine a witness is a vital right flowing out of principles of natural justice, but there has to be a limit to it, lest it becomes a serious violation of the rights of the other party.ratio¶8
The court found no reasonable explanation for the repeated deliberate refusals by the petitioner to conclude cross examination of the respondent, deliberate efforts having been made to protract the proceedings so that the respondent aged about 75 years would give up in frustration.ratio¶9
No infirmity was found in the impugned order; it was upheld and the petition along with pending applications was dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Girish Kathpalia, J., oral judgment dated 09.09.2025) dismissed CM(M) 3771/2024 and upheld the trial court's order dated 10.05.2024 closing the defendant-petitioner's opportunity for further cross examination of the 75-year-old plaintiff-respondent in a suit for recovery of money, whose evidence was being recorded through a Local Commissioner appointed vide order dated 27.10.2023. Although counsel conceded there was no error in the impugned order, the petitioner sought one more opportunity to cross examine, even subject to cost, pleading senior citizenship and care of his ailing wife. The court noted, undisputed by either side, a pattern of adjournments sought by WhatsApp/text messages a day or hours before Local Commissioner proceedings, absences, a dismissed deferral application, and an outright refusal to cross examine on 02.05.2024, while the suit had progressed to partly-heard final arguments. Holding that the right to cross examine, though a vital right flowing from natural justice, has limits lest it seriously violate the other party's rights, and finding no reasonable explanation for the repeated deliberate refusals, the court upheld the impugned order and dismissed the petition and pending applications.

$~90

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 09.09.2025

- CM(M) 3771/2024, CM APPL. 64879/2024 & 64878/2024

RABI GHOSH .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Singh and Ms. Reetu Sharma, Advocates

versus

JAYANTA KUMAR GHOSH .....Respondent Through: Mr. Harsh Gupta, Advocate

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

Petitioner ( defendant in the suit for recovery of money ) has assailed order dated 10.05.2024 passed by the learned trial court, whereby on an application of the present respondent ( plaintiff in the suit ), opportunity of the petitioner for further cross examination of the present respondent was closed.

I have heard learned counsel for both sides.

On behalf of the present petitioner, it is submitted by learned counsel that although there is no error in the impugned order, but the petitioner deserves one more opportunity to cross examine the present respondent,

CM(M) 3771/2024

Page 1 of 6 pages GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.09.09 18:44:25 -07'00'

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 9.09.2025 18:52:44

even if subject to cost. Learned counsel for the present petitioner submits that petitioner is a senior citizen, taking care of his ailing wife, because of which he could not pursue the litigation properly. No other submission has been advanced.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the present respondent strongly opposes the petition, taking me through the impugned order which narrates in detail the dilatory conduct on the part of the present petitioner.

The correctness of the circumstances as narrated in the impugned order has not been disputed by either side. It is on the basis of those circumstances of the case and conduct of the present petitioner that the learned trial court considered it fit not to extend any further indulgence to the present petitioner. It is informed by both sides that the learned trial court has been proceeding further with the suit and even final arguments have already been partly heard.

The circumstances of the suit are narrated in the impugned order as follows.

6.1 The present respondent is aged about 75 years and by way of order dated 27.10.2023, the learned trial court appointed a Local Commissioner for recording of evidence, but counsel for the present petitioner was not concluding cross examination of the present respondent across several opportunities, despite even extension of time granted by the learned trial court. It would be significant to note that the learned counsel for the present

CM(M) 3771/2024

Page 2 of 6 pages GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.09.09 18:44:42 -07'00'

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 9.09.2025 18:52:44

petitioner took a stand before the learned trial court that since the present petitioner was held up looking after his ailing wife, the learned counsel would not be able to conduct cross examination of the present respondent. It further appears that vide order dated 27.10.2023, the Local Commissioner was directed to record evidence with effect from 30.11.2023 and the suit was posted to 27.02.2024 for final arguments.

6.2 The Local Commissioner submitted his report before the learned trial court, observing that the present respondent was chief examined and partly cross examined on 30.11.2023, but on the next date i.e., 29.01.2024 at about 02:30pm, learned counsel for the present petitioner through email requested the Local Commissioner to change the time, so the matter was adjourned by the Local Commissioner to 02:30pm on 30.01.2024 to record further cross examination of the present respondent; that on 30.01.2024 at 02:30pm, the present respondent as well as his counsel were present before the Local Commissioner but the present petitioner and his counsel joined the proceedings at 03:10pm only; that on the next date i.e., 02.02.2024 the present respondent was partly cross examined and matter was adjourned by the Local Commissioner to 09.02.2024 for remaining cross examination of the present respondent, but on 09.02.2024, since the Local Commissioner was not available, the matter was adjourned by him with consent of both sides to 21.02.2024; that on 21.02.2024, despite the date having been fixed as per convenience of counsel for the present petitioner he did not appear and at about 02:39pm sent a text message on WhatsApp expressing his inability to join the proceedings.

CM(M) 3771/2024

Page 3 of 6 pages

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.09.09 18:44:58 -07'00'

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 9.09.2025 18:52:44

6.3 Under those circumstances, the Local Commissioner submitted interim report on 27.02.2024 and the learned trial court granted extension of time to conclude the evidence.

6.4 The Local Commissioner fixed the matter for recording further cross examination of the present respondent on 22.03.2024, but on 21.03.2024, counsel for the present petitioner sent a WhatsApp message to the Local Commissioner expressing his non-availability due to family exigency; the Local Commissioner texted back that in view of the orders passed by the learned trial court, the matter could not be deferred; but despite that message of the Local Commissioner, the main counsel for the present petitioner did not join the proceedings on 22.03.2024, so the matter was adjourned to 28.03.2024 by the Local Commissioner. But on 27.03.2024, counsel for the present petitioner again sent a WhatsApp text that he intended to move an application seeking deferring of the evidence proceedings for 15 days, so the Local Commissioner should wait for outcome of that application. That application was dismissed by the learned trial court on 28.03.2024 in presence of learned counsel for the present petitioner but on the same day, the counsel for petitioner falsely stated before the Local Commissioner that he was not aware about the order passed by the learned trial court.

6.5 Even after dismissal of the said application, the present respondent was not cross examined by the learned counsel for petitioner on 28.03.2024. On 05.04.2024, at about 12:20pm learned counsel for the present petitioner sent a WhatsApp request for adjournment of 15 days, but at the time fixed

CM(M) 3771/2024

Page 4 of 6 pages

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.09.09 18:45:17 -07'00'

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 9.09.2025 18:52:44

on the same day ( 04:00pm ), none appeared from the side of the present petitioner. On 15.04.2024, learned counsel for the present respondent informed on the WhatsApp group created by the Local Commissioner that the present respondent had moved an application for closing further cross examination of the present respondent but though there was no stay on Local Commissioner proceedings, counsel for the present petitioner opted not to appear for cross examination of the present respondent. On the next date, 24.04.2024, again none appeared from the side of the present petitioner to cross examine the present respondent. On the next date 02.05.2024, though learned counsel for the present petitioner appeared before the Local Commissioner but he refused to cross examine the present respondent, taking a plea that the present respondent should clarify as to whether the pending application for closure of cross examination would be pressed. It is going by the aforesaid that the learned trial court arrived at a conclusion that the present petitioner is interested only in delaying the matter. That is why further cross examination of the present respondent was closed by way of the impugned order.

It is in order to respond to the overflowing dockets of courts, especially the trial courts on civil side that the practice of getting recorded evidence through Local Commissioner was adopted by courts. Therefore, it is expected that counsel for both sides would ensure diligence. But in the present case, the above narrative shows that counsel for the present petitioner left no stone unturned to ensure that the matter even before the Local Commissioner keeps getting adjourned, so that the other side gets

CM(M) 3771/2024

Page 5 of 6 pages

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.09.09 18:45:31 -07'00'

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 9.09.2025 18:52:44

frustrated. As narrated above, almost always, counsel for the present petitioner would somehow seek adjournment by way of text messages just a day or few hours before the commencement of proceedings before the Local Commissioner or would simply abstain from appearing.

Of course, right to cross examine a witness is a vital right, flowing out of principles of natural justice. But there has to be a limit to it, lest it becomes a serious violation of the rights of the other party. The above narration leaves no doubt that deliberate efforts were being made from the side of the present petitioner to somehow protract the proceedings as far as possible so that the present respondent aged about 75 years gives up in frustration.

I am unable to find any reasonable explanation for the repeated deliberate refusals on the part of the present petitioner to conclude cross examination of the present respondent.

In view of the aforesaid, I find no infirmity in the impugned order, so the same is upheld and the present petition as well as the pending applications are dismissed.

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4af GIRISH ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc a, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d KATHPALIA 15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965f f801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.09.09 18:45:45 -07'00'

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

SEPTEMBER 09, 2025/ as

CM(M) 3771/2024

Page 6 of 6 pages

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 9.09.2025 18:52:44

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 10.05.2024 of the learned trial court whereby, on the respondent-plaintiff's application, the petitioner-defendant's opportunity for further cross examination of the respondent was closed.¶1
Learned trial court · 10.05.2024
Prior proceeding
Suit for recovery of money; the petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff.¶1
Prior proceeding
By order dated 27.10.2023 the learned trial court appointed a Local Commissioner for recording of evidence, the respondent being aged about 75 years.¶6.1
Prior proceeding
Local Commissioner directed to record evidence with effect from 30.11.2023; suit posted to 27.02.2024 for final arguments.¶6.1
Prior proceeding
Respondent chief examined and partly cross examined on 30.11.2023; thereafter repeated adjournments of Local Commissioner proceedings (email request of 29.01.2024, late joining on 30.01.2024, partial cross examination on 02.02.2024, non-appearance on 21.02.2024 with a WhatsApp message).¶6.2
Prior proceeding
Local Commissioner submitted interim report on 27.02.2024; learned trial court granted extension of time to conclude the evidence.¶6.3
Prior proceeding
Counsel for petitioner sought deferral by WhatsApp messages (21.03.2024, 27.03.2024); his application seeking deferment of evidence proceedings was dismissed by the learned trial court on 28.03.2024.¶6.4
Prior proceeding
Despite dismissal of the application, no cross examination on 28.03.2024; WhatsApp adjournment request on 05.04.2024 with no appearance at 04:00pm; non-appearance on 24.04.2024; on 02.05.2024 counsel appeared before the Local Commissioner but refused to cross examine the respondent.¶6.5
Prior proceeding
On the basis of this conduct the learned trial court concluded the petitioner was interested only in delaying the matter, and closed further cross examination by the impugned order.¶6.5
Prior proceeding
Both sides informed the High Court that the trial court has been proceeding with the suit and final arguments have already been partly heard.¶5