Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 11843
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Devan M. Desai, J
JAYA PARMANAND PATELV/sMADHURIKA RAMANLAL PATEL
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5596 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jenil M Shah
For the Respondents: None appeared
The right to cross-examine a witness is a fundamental right in a trial that should not be denied on technical grounds or a single adjournment request, as substantial justice and a decision on merits outweigh strict adherence to procedural timelines.
Headnote:(A) Right to Cross-Examination - Procedural Fairness - Closing the right to cross-examine a witness upon a single request for adjournment is contrary to the principles of substantial justice, unless the party is found to be grossly negligent or attempting to stall proceedings. (Para 8)
(B) Trial Court Discretion - Adjournments - When documents are exhibited shortly before the scheduled cross-examination, the court should grant a reasonable opportunity to the opposing party to ensure the controversy is decided on merits rather than technical grounds. (Para 8)
Issues: Whether the Trial Court was justified in closing the petitioner's right to cross-examine the defendant's witness after a single request for adjournment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of the petition and verification of service of notice to respondents. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. procedural history of the suit and the trial court's order closing the right to cross-examine. (Para 4) |
| 3. arguments regarding the necessity of cross-examination to prevent frustration of the suit's purpose. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. the primacy of substantial justice over technicalities in granting the right to cross-examine. (Para 8) |
| 5. quashing of the impugned order and directions for immediate cross-examination and final judgment. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for the following reliefs:
(A) A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued quashing and setting aside the judgement and order dated 07.04.2026 passed by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Karjan in Special Civil Suit No. 72 of 2014 below application, Exh.172, at Annexure - 'I’ herein, and the application Exh.172 is required to be allowed as prayed for;
(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present Special Civil Application, the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned order dated 07.04.2026 passed by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Karjan in Special Civil Suit No. 72 of 2014 below application, Exh.172, at Annexure - ‘I’ herein may kindly be ordered to be stayed;
(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present Special Civil Application, further proceedings of Special Civil Sui No. 72 of 2014 pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Karjan may kindly be ordered to be stayed;
(D) Any other and/or further relief that may be deemed necessary in the interest of justice may kindly be granted”
2. Rule. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jenil Shah for the petitioner. Though served, none appeared for the respondents.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has placed on record two affidavits of service of notice, each dated 21.04.2026, which are taken on record. It is submitted that respondent Nos. 1 – 4, though repeated attempts were made for the service of notice, have refused to accept the notice issued by this Court.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner – original plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff has filed the suit for cancellation of a sale deed. The plaintiff submitted examination-in-chief on 08.04.2024 and, after completion of the evidence of the plaintiff, defendants moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter, referred to as “the Code”) for rejection of the plaint which came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2025, against which, the defendants approached this Court by way of Civil Revision Application. The Civil Revision Application also came to be dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.02.2026 with a direction to the learned Trial Court to complete the suit proceedings preferably within a period of six months. Thereafter, on 30.03.2026, witness of defendant No. 1 filed examination-in-chief and also moved an application for giving exhibits to the documents. The application for giving exhibits came to be heard and decided on 02.04.2026. Thereafter, the matter was posted for cross-examination of defendant No. 1 on 07.04.2026. On 07.04.2026, learned advocate for the plaintiff requested to grant an adjournment as the record was voluminous and the copy of affidavit was sent to plaintiff, who is stationed at Mumbai. The learned Trial Court rejected the application and closed the right to cross-examine witness of defendant No. 1. The matter was then posted on 16.04.2026. Learned advocate for the plaintiff moved an application inter alia stating that the plaintiff has assailed the order dated 07.04.2026. However, the said application also came to be rejected and the right of final arguments also came to be closed. The proceedings were posted for pronouncement of judgmen
