Only One Opportunity Was To Be Granted – High Court Upholds Trial Court’s Decision Denying Additional Adjournment for Expert Cross-Examination

In a notable judgment, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a revision petition challenging the trial court’s refusal to grant an adjournment for the cross-examination of a forensic expert. The court emphasized strict adherence to the directives issued by the Supreme Court, underscoring the principle that only a single opportunity for expert testimony was to be provided.

The revision under Article 227 of the Constitution was filed by the petitioner, Suman Sharma, against an order from the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala. The impugned order, dated April 16, 2024, had denied an adjournment request for the cross-examination of Dr. Jassy Anand, a forensic expert engaged to compare disputed signatures and thumb impressions on crucial legal documents.

Initially, the trial court had dismissed an application to engage Dr. Anand for expert testimony, which was later overturned by the High Court in 2018. Despite the High Court’s decision allowing the forensic expert’s examination, a series of legal challenges and the expert’s unavailability led to delays. The Supreme Court intervened, setting a firm deadline for completing the proceedings by April 30, 2024, and specifically limiting the opportunity for expert examination to one occasion.

Justice Alka Sarin meticulously analyzed the sequence of events and legal arguments presented. The judge noted, “The Supreme Court’s order was clear and unambiguous, granting only one opportunity for the expert’s examination, which the trial court rightly adhered to.” Justice Sarin dismissed the petitioner’s contention that an additional opportunity should be afforded, highlighting the lack of substantive justification for the expert’s non-availability on the scheduled date. The court pointed out that the petitioner had ample time to ensure the expert’s presence and found no reason to override the trial court’s decision, which was in strict compliance with the Supreme Court’s directive.

Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, reaffirming the trial court’s order. Justice Sarin stated, “In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the present revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.”

Date of Decision: May 1, 2024

SUMAN SHARMA VERSUS MOHAN LAL (SINCE DECEASED THR LRS) & ANR