The court affirmed the right to further cross-examine a witness under specific conditions, emphasizing adherence to procedural timelines to prevent delays in the resolution of cases.

ORDER :

PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.

Heard learned counsel Sri. H.S.Dwarkanath on behalf of learned counsel Sri.R.A.Chandrasekhara Reddy for the petitioner and Learned counsel Sri.Ajeesh kumar for caveator/respondent No.1.

2. Notice to respondent Nos.2 to 6/defendant Nos.2 to 6 is dispensed as no relief is sought against them.

3. The present petition is filed by the petitioner, who is defendant No.1 before the Commercial Court aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Commercial Court dismissing the applications filed in IA.No.22 and IA.No. 23 in O.S.No.25855/2017 filed under Section 151 CPC and under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC respectively, to further cross examine PW1 and recall the order dated 31.10.2023 and reopen the evidence of the plaintiff.

4. Upon contest, these two applications came to be rejected by the learned judge of the Commercial Court, holding that no proper reasons are made out by the defendant No.1 for the purpose of further cross- examination on certain documents, and he has not given any important instructions on the relevant issues for cross-examination of PW1. The Commercial Court has also come to a conclusion that it is based upon vague grounds and no cogent reasons; the applications are filed only with an intent to protract the proceedings and accordingly, dismissed these two applications.

5. Learned counsel Sri. H.S.Dwarkanath appearing on behalf of defendant No.1, vehemently contends that the impugned orders passed by the Commercial Court are perverse, illegal and arbitrary and the same require to be set aside. An opportunity needs to be given to him to further cross examine PW1 on the aspects that are left out and in view of the subsequent disclosure made by his client to the counsel for defendant No.1, which was not questioned to PW1 in the course of cross-examination.

6. It is further contended that the Commercial Court has failed to appreciate these aspects of the subsequent revelation of certain material facts that would be relevant for the purpose of adjudication in the matter, which was not brought to the notice of the counsel for defendant No.1, due to which he was not aware as to the further cross examination of certain points that were not questioned by the counsel for defendant No.1. Therefore, he seeks to allow the petition. Consequently, allow the applications and permit him to cross examine PW1. He is also agreeable that if a time limit is fixed, he would certainly adhere to the same by conforming to the Commercial Courts Act and the Rules, as the matter is transferred from the Civil Court to the Commercial Court.

7. Per contra, learned counsel, Sri.Ajeesh Kumar appearing for the respondent No.1/plaintiff, vehemently objects to the contentions so put forth by the learned counsel for defendant No.1, contending that in the applications filed by defendant No. 1, which are filed under Section 151 of CPC to cross-examine PW1 and another application under Order XVIII Rule 17 to recall PW1 for further cross examination and reopen the evidence of PW1 as the cross-examination of PW1 was closed.

8. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel to the respondent No.1/plaintiff that initially the matter was of the year 2017 before the regular Civil Suit Court and thereafter the matter was transferred to the Commercial Court and once the matter is transferred to the Commercial Court, all proceedings would have to proceed from the date of transfer in accordance with the procedures laid down under the Commercial Courts Act and the rules thereunder. So it would not be open to the defendants to take their own sweet time and file applications one after the other to protract and prolong the proceedings and it would not be open for the defendant to make a statement that he was