Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The courts emphasize that cross-examination is a vital part of the trial, and closure or cancellation should be justified, with opportunities given to parties to complete their cross-examination unless there is a clear and valid reason for non-participation ["Kangkan Kishore Borah S/O Umesh Borah VS State Of Assam Represented By Commissioner and Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Cultural Affairs Department - Gauhati"], ["Ramesh Chandra Soni vs Bhawari Devi Satyanarayan Soni Charitable Trust - Telangana"].
How to proceed if the cross-examination is ongoing and the party does not appear:
Analysis and Conclusion:- When a party does not appear after cross-examination has commenced or is scheduled, courts typically treat the cross-examination as concluded or 'Nil' unless justified reasons are provided. To cancel or reopen a cross-examination, the party must convincingly demonstrate unavoidable circumstances, such as medical emergencies or procedural lapses. Courts balance the importance of fair trial rights with procedural efficiency, and may impose costs or refuse to reopen proceedings if delays are unjustified ["Kangkan Kishore Borah S/O Umesh Borah VS State Of Assam Represented By Commissioner and Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Cultural Affairs Department - Gauhati"], ["Ramesh Chandra Soni vs Bhawari Devi Satyanarayan Soni Charitable Trust - Telangana"]. Proper application and evidence are essential for challenging a closure or cancellation of cross-examination in such cases.
References:- ["Saurashtra Cement Limited Through Vandankumar Rameshchandra Dalwadi VS DECD. Pankajkumar Sankalchand Patel Through His Legal Heirs And Reps. - Gujarat"]- ["Kangkan Kishore Borah S/O Umesh Borah VS State Of Assam Represented By Commissioner and Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Cultural Affairs Department - Gauhati"]- ["Ramesh Chandra Soni vs Bhawari Devi Satyanarayan Soni Charitable Trust - Telangana"]
In civil litigation, cross-examination is a cornerstone of a fair trial, allowing parties to test the credibility of witnesses. But what happens if cross-examination is underway and the plaintiff suddenly stops appearing after two sessions? This is a common dilemma: If cross examination is going on and plaintiff does not appear after 2 cross examination then how to cancel that cross examination?
This question arises frequently in trial courts, where delays due to non-attendance can frustrate proceedings. Generally, courts exercise discretion to manage such situations, balancing fairness with efficiency. This post explores the legal framework, court powers, and practical steps, drawing from judicial precedents. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice—consult a lawyer for your case.
Courts have broad inherent powers to control proceedings, including deciding whether to continue, adjourn, or close cross-examination when a party fails to appear. The key is whether the non-appearance is justified and if further delays would prejudice the other side or render proceedings futile. Courts typically consider:
As held in one case, The Court is empowered to either refuse an adjournment or impose heavy costs on a party while considering grant of a short adjournment and that a short adjournment can be granted only when circumstances justify it. Elegant Marbles And Granite VS Satish Dhirajlal - Bombay (2022)
Non-appearance after multiple chances, like after two cross-examination sessions, often justifies closure. Courts may record the witness's statement and dispense with further cross-examination if the party is absent or unprepared. Kailash Chandra Sarma VS Biraj Krishna Das - 2009 0 Supreme(Gau) 131
If the plaintiff (or their witness) misses sessions despite court directions, the court can close the cross-examination. This prevents abuse of process and upholds procedural discipline. For instance:
A judgment notes: The Magistrate has the power to dispense with the attendance of the witness if his presence is not necessary and that the absence of the witness after multiple opportunities can justify closing the cross-examination. Bashir Ahmad VS Mehmood Hussain Shah - 1995 0 Supreme(SC) 387
Parties seeking to cancel ongoing cross-examination should:
Under CPC, The Court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit, grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit for reasons to be recorded in writing. Harbhajan Singh VS State of Punjab - 2022 0 Supreme(P&H) 2256
If the witness is present but the cross-examining party (here, defendant) is ready, or vice versa, courts can proceed or dispense. But in plaintiff non-appearance scenarios post-sessions, closure is common after warnings.
Judicial trends emphasize giving reasonable chances before closure, but not indefinitely. In cases of repeated defaults:
Conversely, denying full cross-examination without cause violates fair trial rights. In a petition against time-constrained closure, the court ruled: Courts are obliged to ensure fair opportunity for parties to present their case, which includes allowing cross-examination to conclude, barring rare exceptions. Sunita vs Premwati
For co-defendants or multi-party suits, order matters: Adverse parties cross-examine first per Evidence Act Section 138. Co-defendants may cross-examine if interests conflict, but not routinely. Patna Venkata Sreeramulu VS Dalli Appalareddy - 2022 Supreme(AP) 717MOHINDER SINGH GILL VS JAGDEEP SINGH - 2012 Supreme(P&H) 1504
The right to cross-examine a witness belongs to an adverse party, and parties who do not hold that position should not be allowed to take part in the cross-examination. This ensures orderly proceedings. From case summary in sources
In another, co-defendants were allowed post-plaintiff cross-exam to protect fair trial rights under Article 227. Khalsa High School, Mansa VS Vice Chancellor Punjabi University Patiala - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 1579
Courts avoid hasty closures:
If plaintiff shows sufficient cause, time may be extended with recorded reasons. But repeated lapses post-two sessions tilt toward closure. Kuldeep Kaur VS Raj Kumar - 2017 0 Supreme(P&H) 1966
Parties should comply to avoid adverse orders like costs or dismissal.
In summary, while cross-examination is vital, plaintiff absenteeism after sessions empowers courts to close it, promoting justice without undue delay. Always seek professional advice tailored to your jurisdiction and facts.
Word count approx. 1050. Sources integrated for depth; citations per guidelines.
#CrossExamination #CivilLaw #LegalProcedure
3.2 He has further submitted that since he has not given any examination-in-chief on oath, there is no question of calling him for the purpose of cross-examination, as claimed by the petitioner – plaintiff. ... 2.3 He has further submitted that, in the suit, defendant No. 2 has examined himself and his examination is over, including the cross-examination. The defendant Nos. 1 and 3 have not given an exa....
was left out on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff could have reserved the further cross examination of DW.2 but instead of doing that the cross examination of DW.2 was closed and consequent thereof he was discharged. ... cross examination of DW.2 was closed. ... Accordingly, the closure of the cross examination of DW.2 is set aside and t....
D.W.2 has been cross-examined by plaintiff No.2/respondent No.2 herein and the cross-examination concluded. Then, the revision petitioner herein/ respondent No.10 in the suit had to cross-examine the witness D.W.2. ... In the instant case, before plaintiff No.2/Party-in-person cross examined DW2, revision petitioner ought to have cross examined DW2 and only aft....
D.W.2 has been cross-examined by plaintiff No.2/respondent No.2 herein and the cross-examination concluded. Then, the revision petitioner herein/ respondent No.10 in the suit had to cross-examine the witness D.W.2. ... In the instant case, before plaintiff No.2/Party-in-person cross examined DW2, revision petitioner ought to have cross examined DW2 and only aft....
2. ... and in exceptional cases, particularly, where collusion is alleged, the actual cross-examination takes place when it is done by the defendant, who actually opposed the claim of the plaintiff, and not by the one who sails with the plaintiff. ... If any of the defendants substantially support the case of the plaintiff, yet desires to cross-examine plaintiff’s witness, when there is co-defendant who has pleaded case opposing the case of the plaintiff#HL....
party, the plaintiff has finished his cross- examination. ... In the evidence of DW.2, nothing adverse to the c- defendant is stated during his examination-in-chief. If the co- defendant is now permitted to cross-examine DW.2, it would result in permitting him to water down the admissions elicited by plaintiff in the cross-examination of DW.2. ... It is the case of defendant no.1 that during the c....
It is argued that in-case the defendant Nos.4 and 6 wanted to cross-examine Maghar Singh DW1 then they should have cross-examine him prior to the cross-examination of present petitioner/plaintiff. ... The plaintiff examined Sukhwinder Singh as PW1 who was cross-examined by aforesaid two sets of defendants. The copy of cross-examination of Sukhwinder Singh PW1 is Annexure P-7. ... The cross-examination#HL_....
It was also submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant, despite being given several opportunities did not turn up to cross examine the plaintiff witnesses before the Commissioner. Even opportunities given by the Court for such cross examination in this regard. ... By the first order, the cross examination of the plaintiff witnesses was closed and by the second order dated 18.02.2021, the evidence of the defendant was closed. ... #HL_STA....
He submits that learned Counsel for the petitioner cross-examined PW-1 for three hours till 6.10 p.m. and then sought an adjournment for further cross-examination which has been declined by the learned Civil Judge. 2. ... It is pertinent to mention that the evidence had started at 12: 15 PM and the cross examination of PW1 was deferred at 1 PM. Thereafter, the evidence was resumed at 3 PM, and the plaintiff witness has been examined at length. ... Rana submits that, ....
the cross examination of PW3. ... Moreover, keeping in view the fact that the learned counsel had given an advance information to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff, the learned Trial Court could have given one more opportunity to complete the cross examination of PW3. ... The reason stated for seeking cross examination on 27.09.2022 by the proxy counsel appearing for the counsel for the petitioner/defendants may not be relevant, keeping in vie....
After going through the cross-examination of P.W.2, there is nothing in the cross-examination to discredit the evidence of P.W.2. Except making a stray suggestion that a false case has been foisted against him at the instance of the co-employee due to the strict discipline exhibited by the accused in discharge of his duty. Except the self-serving statement by way of suggestion nothing has been put to P.W.2 to discredit his evidence.
Because, all cross examination are by astute lawyers whereas the witnesses may be illiterate or not so educated. The first appellate court without discussing those reasons basing on which learned trial court had disbelieved the story of oral gift, held that Khalilur Rahman made oral gift in favour of Ghulam Rabbi and in so doing, the learned first appellate court ignored the cross examination of DW-1 saying that it was an unequal duel between an astute lawyer and a rustic. The learned first appellate court failed to notice that one of the signatories to the document was a doctor by professio....
Thus the statement of witnesses becomes admissible only after conducting cross-examination by the defence or if there is any requirement of re-examination. Act mandates how to conduct examination in chief, then cross-examination by defence and re-examination. Section 138 also provides under what circumstances the court can direct for re-examination.
Act mandates how to conduct examination in chief, then cross-examination by defence and re-examination. Section 138 also provides under what circumstances the court can direct for re-examination. Thus the statement of witnesses becomes admissible only after conducting cross-examination by the defence or if there is any requirement of re-examination.
Therefore, the second defendant should first cross-examine the first defendant if at all he wants to cross-examine, of course, with the permission of the trial Court. The purpose of cross-examination of the plaintiff would be defeated, if the second defendant who has no clashing interest with the first defendant is permitted to wait till the cross-examination of the plaintiff is over and is thereafter permitted to cross-examine the first defendant.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
