Supreme Court Upholds Trial Court’s Decision to Close Cross-Examination Rights Due to Repeated Adjournments: Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs. Gopal and Ors. (20 September 2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20 September 2021
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 14117-14118 of 2021
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and A.S. Bopanna, J.

Can a party repeatedly seek adjournments to delay court proceedings, and what are the consequences? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue in a case concerning a suit for eviction, rent arrears, and mesne profit, where the defendant repeatedly sought adjournments to avoid cross-examining the plaintiff’s witness. The court examined whether the High Court was right in upholding the Trial Court’s decision to close the defendant’s right to cross-examine the witness due to these delays.

The Supreme Court bench, composed of Justices M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, delivered the judgment. The judgment was authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

On 14 August 2013, Respondents No. 1 to 4 filed a suit against Ramchandra (now deceased) and the present petitioner, Ishwarlal Mali Rathod, for eviction, arrears of rent, and mesne profit. The petitioner filed a written statement, and issues were framed. On 12 May 2014, the plaintiffs filed an affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which was objected to by the petitioner. The plaintiffs then filed another affidavit on 7 March 2015.

Between 12 May 2015 and 2 December 2019, the defendants sought adjournments at least ten times, which were granted by the court. The court eventually granted an adjournment with costs as a last opportunity. Despite this, the petitioner did not cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness. On 14 October 2019, the court granted time for cross-examination with a cost of Rs. 5,000, stating that failure to cross-examine would result in the closure of their right to do so. The petitioner again failed to cross-examine the witness, and on 5 November 2019, their right was closed.

The petitioner approached the High Court, which initially granted a last opportunity to cross-examine the witness, but the petitioner failed to do so. On 21 December 2020, the case was fixed for cross-examination, and the petitioner again sought an adjournment. The Trial Court, considering the history of repeated adjournments, closed the petitioner’s right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness. The High Court confirmed this order.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially closed the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness on 5 November 2019 due to repeated adjournments. The petitioner then filed a miscellaneous petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore. The High Court, despite noting that no leniency was required, granted a last opportunity to the defendants to cross-examine the witness. However, the petitioner failed to avail this opportunity.

On 21 December 2020, when the suit was fixed for cross-examination, the petitioner again sought an adjournment. The Trial Court, considering the previous adjournments and the failure of the defendant to cross-examine the witness, closed the right to cross-examine. The High Court upheld this decision in its order dated 17 February 2021, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of procedural rules concerning adjournments and the right to cross-examine witnesses in civil suits. The relevant provision mentioned is Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which deals with the recording of evidence.

Order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC states:
“In every case, the examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit and copies thereof shall be supplied to the opposite party by the party who calls him for evidence: Provided that where a party desires to examine any witness, he shall file the affidavit of such witness in the Court before the date fixed for his examination and the Court may, in its discretion, grant time to the opposite party to cross-examine the witness.”

The Supreme Court also considered the broader implications of repeated adjournments on the justice delivery system, referencing several of its previous judgments.

Arguments

The petitioner’s argument before the Supreme Court was not explicitly detailed in the provided text. However, it can be inferred that the petitioner argued against the closure of their right to cross-examine, likely contending that they should have been given another opportunity.

The petitioner’s main submission was that the High Court was wrong in upholding the order of the Trial Court closing the right to cross-examine. The submission was based on the premise that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

The respondents’ argument, also not explicitly detailed, would have been that the Trial Court and High Court were correct in closing the right to cross-examine due to the repeated delays caused by the petitioner.

The respondents would have relied on the fact that the petitioner was given multiple opportunities to cross-examine the witness, including a last opportunity with costs imposed, but the petitioner failed to avail of these opportunities.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the provided text. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the Trial Court’s order closing the right of the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness, considering the repeated adjournments sought by the defendant.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several of its previous judgments to emphasize the importance of timely justice and to condemn the practice of seeking repeated adjournments. These authorities are categorized by the legal point they address:

On the Issue of Repeated Adjournments and Delay in Justice:

• Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd. (2011) 9 SCC 678 – The Supreme Court observed that courts should not grant adjournments merely because stakes are high and that litigants do not have the liberty to proceed with the trial at their leisure.
• Babu Singh v. State of U.P. (1978) 1 SCC 579 – The Supreme Court highlighted the slow motion syndrome in the justice system and emphasized that speedy justice is a component of social justice.
• Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand and Anr. (2013) 5 SCC 202 – The Supreme Court condemned repeated adjournments and emphasized that the foundation of justice rests on the speedy delineation of pending cases.

On the Role of Advocates in the Justice Delivery System:

• Ramon Services (P) Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor [(2001) 1 SCC 118]– The Supreme Court cautioned that advocates would be answerable for the consequences suffered by the party if non-appearance was solely due to a strike call.
• Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra [(1984) 2 SCC 556] – The Supreme Court observed that an advocate stands in a loco parentis towards the litigants.
• Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1984) 1 SCC 722] – The Supreme Court emphasized the duty of every advocate to attend the trial from day to day.
• Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation (P) Ltd. [(1999) 1 SCC 37] – The Supreme Court emphasized the obligation of a lawyer in his duty towards the Court and the duty of the Court to the Bar.
• O.P. Sharma v. High Court of P&H [(2011) 6 SCC 86] – The Supreme Court highlighted the vital role and status of lawyers in a democratic India governed by the rule of law.
• R.K. Garg v. State of H.P. [(1981) 3 SCC 166] – The Supreme Court opined that the Bar and the Bench are an integral part of the same mechanism that administers justice to the people.

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) – This provision deals with the recording of evidence and the process of examination and cross-examination of witnesses.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the decision of the High Court and the Trial Court. The Court emphasized that the petitioner had misused the adjournments granted by the court and had not availed of the opportunities given to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness.

The Court reiterated the importance of timely justice and condemned the practice of seeking repeated adjournments to delay proceedings.

The following table shows how the authorities were viewed by the Court:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure timely justice and prevent the misuse of court procedures by repeatedly seeking adjournments. The Court emphasized that such practices undermine the justice delivery system and erode public confidence.

The Court’s reasoning was also driven by the principle that litigants must cooperate with the court in ensuring effective progress on the dates fixed for hearing. The Court noted that the petitioner had been given multiple opportunities to cross-examine the witness, including a last opportunity with costs imposed, but had failed to avail of these opportunities.

The ratio of fact to law that influenced the court to decide:

The Court’s reasoning can be summarized in the following flowchart:

The Court did not discuss any alternative interpretations. The final decision was reached based on the factual matrix of repeated adjournments, the opportunities given to the petitioner, and the need to uphold the integrity of the justice delivery system.

The decision was reached by considering the facts of the case, the conduct of the petitioner, and the legal precedents on the need for timely justice.

The Court’s reasons for the decision include:

• The petitioner repeatedly sought adjournments, delaying the proceedings.
• The petitioner was given multiple opportunities to cross-examine the witness, including a last opportunity with costs.
• The petitioner misused the liberty and grace shown by the court.
• The need to ensure timely justice and prevent the misuse of court procedures.
• The importance of litigants cooperating with the court.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Present is a classic example of misuse of the adjournments granted by the court.”

“Repeated adjournments on one or the other pretext and adopting the dilatory tactics is an insult to justice and concept of speedy disposal of cases.”

“Time has now come to change the work culture and get out of the adjournment culture so that confidence and trust put by the litigants in the Justice delivery system is not shaken and Rule of Law is maintained.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges, both of whom agreed on the decision.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a straightforward application of the principle that parties should not be allowed to abuse the court process by repeatedly seeking adjournments. The Court’s interpretation of the law is that the right to cross-examine is not absolute and can be curtailed if a party engages in dilatory tactics.

The implications of this judgment for future cases are that courts will likely be more stringent in granting adjournments and may close the right to cross-examine if parties repeatedly seek adjournments without sufficient cause.

The judgment does not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reinforces existing principles related to the need for timely justice and the prevention of abuse of court procedures.

Key Takeaways

• Courts will not tolerate repeated requests for adjournments to delay proceedings.
• Parties must cooperate with the court to ensure the timely disposal of cases.
• The right to cross-examine a witness is not absolute and can be closed if a party engages in dilatory tactics.
• This judgment reinforces the importance of speedy justice and the need to prevent the misuse of court procedures.
• Trial Courts are empowered to close the right to cross-examine if the party is not cooperating with the Court.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case. The Court simply dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the decisions of the lower courts.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that courts can close the right to cross-examine a witness if a party repeatedly seeks adjournments to delay proceedings. This decision reinforces the existing position of law on the importance of timely justice and the need to prevent the misuse of court procedures. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the same by dismissing the Special Leave Petition.

Conclusion

In the case of Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs. Gopal and Ors., the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court and the Trial Court to close the defendant’s right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness due to repeated adjournments. The Court emphasized the need for timely justice and condemned the practice of seeking adjournments to delay proceedings. This judgment serves as a reminder to litigants and advocates that they must cooperate with the court and that the right to cross-examine is not absolute and can be curtailed if abused.