Defendants Denied Cross-Examination in Civil Suit, Emphasizing Timely Proceedings

The High Court allowed the defendants a last opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness in a civil suit, directing the trial court to decide the case within a year. Despite this, the defendants' repeated adjournment requests were rejected, including one due to counsel's health issues related to COVID-19. The court closed the defendants' right to cross-examine, citing their history of delaying tactics and lack of adequate justification for adjournments. The defendants' petitions were dismissed due to their conduct, emphasizing the importance of timely and diligent proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Right to cross-examine plaintiff's witness closed by trial court.
2. Application for adjournment due to counsel's health issues rejected, leading to closing of defendants' right to cross-examine.

Issue 1: Right to cross-examine plaintiff's witness closed by trial court.

The defendants in a civil suit sought to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness but failed to do so despite multiple adjournments. The trial court closed their right to cross-examine after granting several opportunities. The defendants challenged this order in a miscellaneous petition, which was allowed by the High Court, granting them a last opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The High Court directed the trial court to decide the suit within a year. However, despite the direction, the cross-examination did not take place. The plaintiff then filed an application to delete the name of a deceased defendant and sought to proceed with the case. The defendants sought adjournments, citing various reasons, including health issues related to COVID-19. The trial court rejected their application and closed their right to cross-examine, leading to the filing of the present petitions by the defendants.

Issue 2: Application for adjournment due to counsel's health issues rejected, leading to closing of defendants' right to cross-examine.

During the proceedings, the defendants' counsel requested an adjournment due to health concerns related to COVID-19, stating that he could not cross-examine from a distance of 6ft. in the closed courtroom. The court rejected this application and closed the defendants' right to cross-examine, setting the case for a future date. The defendants argued for one last opportunity to cross-examine in the interest of justice, while the plaintiff's counsel opposed, citing the defendants' history of delaying tactics since 2014. The plaintiff had filed the suit for eviction and rent arrears in 2013, and the defendants had been seeking adjournments repeatedly. Despite the High Court's previous direction and the lapse of the one-year period, the defendants continued to seek adjournments without providing adequate supporting documents for their requests. The court noted the casual approach of the defendants and their counsel, dismissing the petitions due to their conduct and lack of deserving leniency.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues surrounding the closure of the defendants' right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness and the subsequent rejection of an adjournment application, leading to the dismissal of the defendants' petitions.

---