The right to cross-examine witnesses is fundamental to a fair trial. Despite a party's negligence in seeking repeated adjournments, courts should grant a final opportunity to cross-examine to prevent serious prejudice, provided it is subject to costs and strict conditions.

Order on Board

Heard.

2. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calling in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, FTC, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No. 33-A/2023, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Order XVII Rule 1 of the CPC seeking adjournment was rejected and his right to cross-examine the plaintiffs’ witnesses was forfeited.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was, on earlier occasions, adjourned both at the instance of the petitioner as well as the respondents for one reason or the other. It is contended that on 16.12.2025, an application for adjournment was filed on the ground that the counsel appearing for the defendant was engaged in another matter before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. It is urged that instead of rejecting the application outright, the learned trial Court ought to have granted adjournment subject to imposition of reasonable costs.

4. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have instituted the suit for specific performance of contract, permanent injunction and possession of the suit property and the petitioner has been diligently contesting the matter. Though on certain occasions the cross-examination could not be conducted, the petitioner seeks one effective opportunity and undertakes to proceed without seeking further adjournment, even if costs are imposed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

6. From the order-sheets placed on record, it transpires that on 16.04.2025, when the matter was fixed for recording of plaintiffs’ evidence, the case was adjourned on the application of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 26.06.2025, 22.08.2025 and 17.09.2025 also, the proceedings were adjourned on applications preferred by the petitioner. On 17.09.2025, the petitioner/defendant No.1 was proceeded ex parte and the matter was fixed for final arguments.

7. Subsequently, on 14.10.2025, the petitioner moved an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC, which was allowed on 19.11.2025, and the ex-parte proceedings were set aside. The case was thereafter fixed for cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ witnesses. Again, on 02.12.2025, the proceedings were adjourned on the application of the petitioner and the matter was fixed for 16.12.2025. On the said date, once again, an application for adjournment was filed by the petitioner, which came to be rejected, resulting in forfeiture of his right to cross-examine the plaintiffs’ witnesses.

8. It further transpires that thereafter the matter was fixed for recording of the defendant’s evidence. The petitioner filed his affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC on 28.02.2026, however, he has not made himself available for cross-examination by the plaintiffs. The present petition has been filed on 10.03.2026.

9. The record, thus, clearly reflects that the petitioner has been negligent and has repeatedly sought adjournments, thereby delaying the proceedings. The manner in which adjournments were sought does not inspire confidence and indicates lack of bona fides.

10. However, it is equally trite that the right of cross-examination is a valuable right and constitutes an essential component of fair trial. Denial of such opportunity may cause serious prejudice, particularly in a suit for