The Delhi High Court, in a recent decision, has set aside a Trial Court order that closed a petitioner’s right to cross-examine a senior citizen witness. While emphasizing the “interest of justice,” the Court granted one final opportunity to the petitioner to conduct the cross-examination, subject to the payment of costs to the opposing party.
The matter came before the High Court through a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The petitioner, Laxman, challenged an order dated December 22, 2025, passed by the Trial Court in case No. PC-02/2016. The Trial Court had closed the petitioner’s opportunity to cross-examine RW-2/1, a witness described as a senior citizen aged approximately 85 years.
Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, presiding over the case, disposed of the petition by granting the requested opportunity, noting that it would be in the interest of justice to allow the cross-examination to proceed despite previous delays.
Background of the Case
The litigation stems from a probate case (PC-02/2016) pending since 2016. The record indicates that Defense Evidence (RE) was initially closed on July 9, 2025. Subsequently, upon an application by the petitioner, the Trial Court granted an additional opportunity to cross-examine RW-2/1, subject to availability and payment of costs.
On December 22, 2025, the matter was listed for the cross-examination. The Trial Court noted that the witness was an 85-year-old senior citizen and directed the petitioner’s counsel to complete the cross-examination in both the present and a connected matter that day. However, after the pre-lunch session, the petitioner’s counsel informed the court that he could not appear for the post-lunch session as he was engaged in another matter involving evidence. Consequently, the Trial Court closed the opportunity and listed the case for final arguments.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner’s counsel argued that denying the opportunity to cross-examine RW-2/1 would cause “serious prejudice” to the petitioner’s case. He prayed for one final chance to examine the witness.
Conversely, counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2 (who appeared in person) contended that the Trial Court had already granted “sufficient opportunities” to the petitioner. They argued that the present petition was a tactic “filed only to delay the matter” and urged the Court to dismiss it.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court perused the impugned order of the Trial Court, which stated:
“I do not deem it appropriate to give another opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine this witness. Accordingly, opportunity to cross-examine RW2/1 stands closed. RE has already been closed.”
Justice Gupta observed the procedural history, noting that while the petitioner had been granted prior opportunities, the specific circumstances justified an intervention. The Court held:
“Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the said witness.”
The Decision
The High Court set aside the Trial Court’s restriction and ordered:
- One more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to cross-examine RW-2/1.
- This opportunity is subject to the payment of ₹15,000 to the opposite party.
- The Trial Court is permitted to schedule the cross-examination on the date already fixed or any other convenient date.
The petition [CM(M) 430/2026] and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
- Case Title: Laxman vs. D V Singh & Ors.
- Case Number: CM(M) 430/2026
