Natural justice does not require repeated adjournments where delay tactics persist and cross-examination is closed.

A review application filed beyond the prescribed period without any condonation request was rejected, and the trial court also found the supporting facts to be incorrect. Repeated non-appearance for cross-examination led to several adjournments and left the witness waiting, prompting the court to close cross-examination. The court held that natural justice does not require repeated adjournments where counsel uses delaying tactics, and that evidence must be recorded within a reasonable time without harassing witnesses. The petition challenging the dismissal of the review application and the closure of cross-examination was dismissed as without merit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition assailing dismissal of the review application and closure of cross-examination could succeed despite delay, absence of condonation, and repeated non-appearance by the defendant side.

Analysis: The review application had been filed beyond the prescribed period without any application for condonation of delay, and the trial court had also found the facts stated in the application to be incorrect. The record showed repeated defaults in appearing for cross-examination, with the matter being adjourned several times and the witness being kept waiting. The Court held that principles of natural justice do not require repeated adjournments where counsel adopts tactics to delay proceedings, and that courts must ensure that evidence is recorded within a reasonable time without harassment of witnesses.

Conclusion: The petition was found to be without merit and was dismissed.

---