https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298878 Repeated adjournments and non-appearance can justify closing a party's right to cross-examine when that party has been given multiple last opportunities, including costs, yet still fails to proceed. The Court treated cross-examination as a procedural right that is not unfettered and held that parties must cooperate in the progress of trial rather than keep proceedings pending at their leisure. On the record, the trial court's closure of the defendant's right to cross-examine was supported, and the High Court's affirmation was upheld. en-us Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Aug 2024 10:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298878 Repeated adjournments and non-appearance can justify closing a party's right to cross-examine when that party has been given multiple last opportunities, including costs, yet still fails to proceed. The Court treated cross-examination as a procedural right that is not unfettered and held that parties must cooperate in the progress of trial rather than keep proceedings pending at their leisure. On the record, the trial court's closure of the defendant's right to cross-examine was supported, and the High Court's affirmation was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298878