TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether repeated applications for adjournment and recall of the witness amounted to abuse of the process of court and justified refusal of further indulgence. (ii) Whether the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be invoked to secure further cross-examination in the circumstances of the case.
Issue (i): Whether repeated applications for adjournment and recall of the witness amounted to abuse of the process of court and justified refusal of further indulgence.
Analysis: The proceedings showed repeated adjournments, successive interlocutory applications and persistent non-participation despite opportunities and costs being imposed. The conduct of the litigant was found to be obstructive and incompatible with the obligation to conduct litigation with diligence. The Court emphasized that adjournments are not a matter of right and that courts must prevent delay tactics that defeat speedy civil adjudication.
Conclusion: The repeated attempts were held to be an abuse of process and did not merit further indulgence.
Issue (ii): Whether the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be invoked to secure further cross-examination in the circumstances of the case.
Analysis: The power to recall a witness is discretionary, to be used sparingly and primarily to clarify doubts of the court. It is not intended to enable a party to fill omissions, introduce additional material, or prolong the trial. Where an application is mischievous, frivolous, or designed to cover negligence or lacunae, rejection with costs is warranted.
Conclusion: The application for further cross-examination was not sustainable and was liable to be rejected.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the order refusing further cross-examination failed, and the Court declined to interfere, while affirming the need to curb dilatory conduct and protect the expeditious conduct of civil trials.
Ratio Decidendi: The power to recall a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 is discretionary and cannot be used routinely to fill lacunae or to delay proceedings; applications of a dilatory or frivolous nature may be rejected with costs.
TaxTMI 
