To ensure proper adjudication and protect valuable rights of a party, the court may grant a final effective opportunity to cross-examine a witness, setting aside orders that closed such opportunity due to procedural defaults.

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 27.01.2026 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby the cross-examination of DW3 by the petitioner was declared as “NIL”. A further prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 20.02.2026 (Annexure P-8), whereby the application filed by the petitioner for permitting further cross-examination of DW3 was dismissed.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner–plaintiff had filed a civil suit for possession by way of specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 17.01.2024, allegedly executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner. Upon notice, the respondent appeared and contested the suit. The petitioner led his evidence and closed the same. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 27.01.2026, the cross-examination of DW3 Gurmeet Singh was treated as NIL. Subsequently, the application filed under Section 151 CPC seeking recall of the said order and permission to further cross-examine DW3 was dismissed vide order dated 20.02.2026.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not afforded an adequate and reasonable opportunity to cross-examine DW3. It is contended that on 22.01.2026, both the counsel were present before the learned trial Court for concluding the evidence of DW3 Gurmeet Singh; however, the same could not be concluded and the case was adjourned to 27.01.2026 to be taken up at 11:00 AM, subject to payment of costs of ₹300/- to be deposited by both the parties separately in the DLSA. It is further submitted that on 27.01.2026 at 11:00 AM, neither the witness nor the counsel for the parties were present and the file was ordered to be taken up after lunch. The file was again taken up at 11:45 AM, when learned counsel for the petitioner was present; however, due to non-appearance of learned counsel for the defendant, the matter was again passed over. Eventually, at 04:30 PM, the learned trial Court passed the following order:

“File taken up at 04:30 PM. The witness remained present throughout the day. Ld counsel for the defendant has paid the cost so imposed on previous adjournment in DLSA. Receipt has been placed on record. None has appeared on behalf of plaintiff for completing the cross-examination of this witness. Even the cost imposed on previous adjournment has not been paid. Seeing the conduct, the undersigned does not deem it appropriate to adjourn the case for further cross-examination of this witness. Accordingly, the opportunity given to the counsel for plaintiff for cross-examining the witness Gurmeet Singh on behalf of plaintiff is hereby treated to be nil. Further perusal of file reveals that defendant has already availed 25 effective opportunities for DWs. As such, taking into consideration the fact that the case is an old case instituted in the year 2017 and also pertains to the list of action plan cases of court of undersigned, last opportunity is granted to defendant for concluding the evidence on 29.01.2026, failing which appropriate orders would be passed.”

3.1 It is argued that the learned trial Court erred in treating the opportunity to cross-examine DW3 as NIL. It is further contended that the subsequent application under Section 151 CPC for recalling t