Court cannot compel counsel to conclude cross-examination on same day, except in rarest of circumstances: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently observed that a court cannot compel an advocate to finish his cross-examination on the same day it starts, except in the rarest of circumstances. (Sunita v. Premvati).Justice C Hari Shankar said in his order,"While it is open to a Court to jettison irrelevant and immaterial questions, if asked by Counsel, nonetheless, save and except in the rarest of circumstances, the Court cannot compel a Counsel to conclude cross-examination on the very day when it starts.".The Court was dealing with a plea challenging an order passed by a civil judge wherein the petitioner's right to cross-examine a witness was closed on account of the 80-year-old witness' age and the nature of questions being deemed 'irrelevant'.Appearing on behalf of the petitioner (defendant in the suit), Advocate VP Rana submitted that on September 14 this year, an application of the respondent under Order VII Rule 14 (production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) was allowed. The cross-examination of Prosecution Witness-1 (PW-1) in the case was commenced by the counsel for the petitioner at 3 PM. This witness was cross-examined for three hours till 6:10 PM, after which the counsel sought adjournment for further cross-examination, which was declined by the civil judge at the Dwarka courts."It is 06:10 PM already and ld. counsel for the defendant seeks adjournment on the ground that another counsel who has to cross examine the witness has not appeared today...The Court is not unmindful of the fact that the plaintiff is an 80 yrs old citizen and despite the time constrain, several irrelevant questions have already been asked...In view of the same, adjournment is not granted. PW1 examined, cross examined and discharged..." the civil judge said in her order..The Court, however, held,"Given the fact that cross-examination of PW-1 commenced only at 12.15 p.m., the learned Civil Judge was, prima facie, not justified in rejecting the petitioner’s request for permission to continue cross-examination of PW-1 on the next date of hearing."It added that the factors which prompted the civil judge refuse the petitioner’s request for further opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 cannot be treated as relevant."All that the learned Civil Judge observes is that the plaintiff was 80 years of age and several irrelevant questions had been put to her," the Court remarked.Thus, the Court was of the view that in the interests of justice, the petitioner ought to be allowed permission to continue the cross-examination of PW-1 on the next date of hearing."The petitioner is directed to endeavour and make all efforts to conclude the cross- examination of PW-1 on the said date. No adjournment would be granted to the petitioner in that regard," the Court ordered..Advocates VP Rana and Jyoti Nambiar appeared for the petitioner. The respondent was represented by Advocate NC Sharma..Read order here: