Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Final Opportunity for Witness Cross-Examination to Prevent Prejudice; Sets Aside Trial Court Orders, Imposes Costs - 2025-05-01

High Court Grants Petitioner One Last Chance for Witness Cross-Examination, Emphasizes Preventing Prejudice

Chandigarh : The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a recent decision, set aside trial court orders that had denied a petitioner the opportunity to cross-examine a key witness. While acknowledging the trial court's adherence to previous directives, Justice Manoj Kumar granted one final chance for the cross-examination to prevent potential prejudice to the petitioner's case, subject to payment of costs.

The revision petition (CR-2419-2025) was filed by Amarjit Singh @ Amarjit Ahluwalia against Iqbal Kaur , challenging trial court orders, notably one dated April 17, 2024, which dismissed his application to recall witness Harwinder Kaur (PW1) for cross-examination.

Case Background and Procedural History

The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the ongoing suit, had previously approached the High Court (in CR No. 1911 of 2024) when his evidence was closed by the trial court. By an order dated January 10, 2024, the High Court had partly allowed that petition, granting "one last opportunity" to lead his entire evidence on a fixed date, February 7, 2024. It was stipulated that only witnesses present on that day would be examined.

On February 7, 2024, four witnesses for the petitioner appeared, including Harwinder Kaur (PW1). The examination-in-chief of PW1 and another witness (PW4 Amit Kumar) was recorded. The case was then adjourned to February 10, 2024, for their cross-examination.

On the adjourned date, while PW4 Amit Kumar was cross-examined, PW1 Harwinder Kaur could not appear. An application citing her ill health and seeking an exemption from appearance was moved by the petitioner but was dismissed by the trial court. Subsequently, an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for recalling PW1 Harwinder Kaur for cross-examination was also dismissed by the trial court on April 17, 2024. These dismissals prompted the current revision petition before the High Court.

Arguments and Court's Rationale

The petitioner's counsel argued that PW1's absence was due to genuine ill health and there was no intention to delay proceedings. It was contended that the trial court had erroneously declined the opportunity for cross-examination, which would gravely prejudice the petitioner's case, especially since the High Court's previous order had implicitly included the opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses whose examination-in-chief was recorded.

The High Court, per Justice Manoj Kumar , considered the submissions. The judgment noted: > "Though, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court committed no illegality in denying any further opportunity of cross-examination of Harwinder Kaur (PW1), lest it may prejudice the case of the petitioner, this Court grants one more opportunity to the petitioner for cross-examination of Harwinder Kaur (PW1)."

The Court observed that issuing notice to the respondent ( Iqbal Kaur ) was not necessary for this order, as the proposed order would not cause her prejudice, likely to expedite the matter.

Decision and Implications

The High Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the impugned trial court orders dated January 10, 2024 (Annexure P-26, which the judgment identified as dismissing an exemption application, though earlier described as the High Court's own prior order) and April 17, 2024 (Annexure P-30, which dismissed the application to recall PW1).

In the interest of justice and to ensure the petitioner is not unduly prejudiced, the Court granted one final opportunity for the cross-examination of PW1 Harwinder Kaur. However, this came with a condition: > "This shall, however, be subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/-, which shall be paid to the respondent."

The High Court directed the parties to appear before the trial court on July 1, 2024. It clarified that it was not mandating the cross-examination to occur on that specific date, leaving it to the trial court's discretion to fix a convenient date for this single opportunity.

This judgment underscores the judiciary's role in balancing procedural strictness with the fundamental principles of fair trial, particularly the right to cross-examine witnesses, while also using costs to mitigate any potential inconvenience caused by the allowance.