Repeated adjournments and unsupported delay tactics can justify closure of the right to cross-examine in civil proceedings.

Repeated failure to use a granted last opportunity for cross-examination, followed by unsupported requests for adjournment, justified closure of the defendants' right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness. The Court treated the conduct as dilatory, noted that no affidavit or material documents supported the further request, and accepted the trial court's refusal to grant additional indulgence. The closure order was upheld because there was no basis to interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion in managing long-pending proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the defendants, after repeated adjournments and a prior last opportunity, were entitled to further time to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness.

Analysis: The defendants had been given repeated opportunities over a long period to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness, including a specific last opportunity with costs and an express direction that no further adjournment would be sought. Despite that indulgence, they again sought adjournment on a flimsy ground, supported by no affidavit or material documents. The Court treated the conduct as dilatory and observed that the plaintiff was a senior citizen and the suit had remained pending for a long time.

Conclusion: The defendants were not entitled to any further leniency or adjournment, and the closure of their right to cross-examine was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The petitions failed because the Court found no justification to interfere with the trial court's order closing the defendants' right of cross-examination.

Ratio Decidendi: Repeated failure to avail a granted last opportunity for cross-examination, coupled with unsupported requests for adjournment, justifies closure of the right to cross-examine and refusal of further indulgence.

---