Summary
The Court refused to reopen the defendant’s opportunity to cross-examine after repeated adjournments, costs and express last chances, including a further opportunity granted by the High Court. The defendant had not used those opportunities and instead delayed an eviction suit. The Court emphasised that litigants must cooperate in effective hearings and courts must avoid mechanical adjournments that undermine timely justice. The special leave petitions were dismissed; the main suit was reported already disposed of.
Issues
- Whether repeated unused opportunities and final warnings justified closure of the defendant’s cross-examination right.
- What responsibilities litigants, advocates and courts bear in preventing abusive adjournment practices.
Held
- The defendant received at least ten adjournments over several years, express last opportunities and a costs order, yet did not cross-examine. Even the High Court’s further final opportunity was not used. Closure of cross-examination in those circumstances warranted no interference. (¶¶ 1, 2, 4, 5.6)
- Parties cannot dictate trial progress at their convenience or misuse procedural indulgence. Advocates and courts share responsibility for effective hearings, and routine adjournments can defeat litigants’ access to timely justice and confidence in the system. Courts should resist unnecessary adjournments notwithstanding pressure arising from refusal. (¶¶ 4, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5)
- The further indulgence sought was refused because the defendant had misused the opportunities already afforded. The Court also noted the report that the main suit had been disposed of and dismissed both special leave petitions. It did not adjudicate the eviction claim’s substantive merits. (¶ 5.6)
Result
Special leave petitions dismissed; refusal to reopen cross-examination sustained after repeated unused final opportunities.