CPC | Repeated Delays No Excuse, But Fair Trial Demands Final Chance to Cross-Examine: Karnataka High Court

In a significant ruling on October 24, 2024, the Karnataka High Court allowed a petition by Sri Siddarangaiah, granting him a final opportunity to cross-examine a key witness in a long-standing property dispute. The Court set aside the trial court's previous order denying Siddarangaiah's request to recall the witness, noting the importance of the issue under consideration but also imposing a penalty of Rs.10,000 for the repeated delays. Justice R. Nataraj emphasized that failure to complete the cross-examination at the next scheduled hearing would result in a summary decision on the issue, ensuring that judicial efficiency is balanced with fairness.
The dispute in this case originated with a partition suit (O.S. No. 162/2002) filed by the petitioner, Sri Siddarangaiah, seeking division and possession of his share in ancestral property. The trial court initially dismissed the suit in 2016, prompting Siddarangaiah to appeal (R.A. No. 112/2016). In 2020, the appellate court remanded the case back to the trial court to resolve a crucial issue: whether the defendants could prove that the property had already been divided more than 70 years ago between the fathers of the plaintiff and defendants.
During the remand proceedings, the defendants' witness, DW.1 (defendant No. 2), was presented for cross-examination. Although multiple opportunities were given to Siddarangaiah to complete the cross-examination, he repeatedly failed to do so, citing reasons beyond his control. After several missed chances, the trial court closed DW.1's evidence as "nil" and set the case down for final arguments, refusing to allow any further cross-examination. Aggrieved by this order, Siddarangaiah filed a writ petition with the Karnataka High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, seeking a last opportunity to question the witness.
Exercise of Judicial Discretion in Recalling Witnesses (Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC)
Under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, courts have discretion to recall a witness for further examination if it serves the interests of justice. Siddarangaiah argued that cross-examining DW.1 was essential to address the critical issue framed by the appellate court, which could potentially impact the outcome of the appeal. Despite his previous failures to utilize the given opportunities, he requested a final chance, underscoring the importance of fairness in adjudicating property rights.
The High Court recognized the relevance of the issue and the plaintiff's right to a fair trial. It noted that while the trial court’s decision to deny further cross-examination was technically justified due to repeated delays, the significance of the issue merited one last opportunity, provided it was coupled with exemplary costs to deter future delays.
"Given the substantial impact of the framed issue on the outcome of the appeal, it is appropriate to grant the petitioner a final opportunity to cross-examine DW.1, though subject to a cost penalty for past delays," the Court observed [Paras 6-9].
Balancing Judicial Efficiency and Fairness in Litigation
The Court highlighted the importance of judicial efficiency, noting that Siddarangaiah’s repeated delays in cross-examining DW.1 disrupted the proceedings and strained court resources. At the same time, the Court recognized that the core issue—whether the property had been previously divided—was central to the suit's resolution, warranting a balanced approach.
To address both fairness and efficiency, the High Court imposed a Rs.10,000 cost on Siddarangaiah as a deterrent against further delays. It specified that the cost was to be paid to the defendants at the next hearing. The Court also made it clear that failure to either complete the cross-examination or pay the cost would result in the trial court proceeding to determine the issue summarily, thus ensuring that the case would not be delayed indefinitely.
"This Court is mindful of the need to prevent frivolous delays, and thus imposes a cost of Rs.10,000 on the petitioner. Failure to complete cross-examination on the next date will lead to a summary decision, ensuring a balance between fairness and judicial efficiency," the Court stated [Para 10].
Final Opportunity Subject to Strict Compliance
The Court's ruling provided Siddarangaiah with a final, non-negotiable chance to cross-examine DW.1, setting clear conditions to avoid indefinite prolongation of the trial. It stipulated that if the petitioner did not conduct the cross-examination on the next scheduled date or failed to pay the imposed cost, the trial court would proceed to render a decision on the issue without further consideration of his request.
"If the plaintiff does not cross-examine DW.1 on the next or adjourned date of hearing, or does not pay the cost as ordered, the trial court shall proceed to answer the issue in accordance with law and place it before the appellate court," the Court ordered [Para 11].
High Court Sets Aside Trial Court’s Order, Grants Conditional Relief to Plaintiff
In its ruling, the Karnataka High Court struck a balance between fairness to the litigant and the need for judicial efficiency. By allowing Siddarangaiah a last chance to cross-examine the defendant’s witness, the Court underscored the significance of fair trial rights in civil litigation, while imposing conditions to prevent any further undue delay. This decision serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s commitment to equitable outcomes without compromising procedural discipline.
Writ Petition Allowed: The High Court set aside the trial court's order and permitted the plaintiff a final opportunity to cross-examine DW.1.
Conditional Costs Imposed: The Court directed the plaintiff to pay Rs.10,000 to the defendants as a condition for cross-examining the witness.
Strict Compliance Requirement: The Court made it clear that if the plaintiff failed to either pay the cost or complete the cross-examination on the next hearing date, the trial court would proceed with a summary decision on the issue.
Key Takeaways:
Discretion in Recalling Witnesses: Courts may exercise discretion to recall witnesses under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, especially if it serves the interests of justice, but may impose costs to discourage frivolous delays.
Balancing Fairness and Judicial Efficiency: The High Court’s ruling exemplifies how courts can ensure fair trial rights while maintaining procedural discipline, particularly in cases where litigants show repeated delays.
Conditional Relief to Avoid Indefinite Delays: Imposing costs and setting a clear, non-negotiable compliance deadline ensures that litigants do not misuse judicial leniency to prolong proceedings indefinitely.

Date of Decision: October 24, 2024

Sri Siddarangaiah v. Sri Gangarangaiah and Others