In Brief
A defendant repeatedly sought adjournments and filed multiple interlocutory applications for further cross-examination of the opposing party's witness after examination-in-chief had concluded. The defendant cited frivolous reasons such as counsel's family illness, a marriage ceremony, and inability to obtain certified copies. The trial court rejected the application with costs of Rs. 1,000. The High Court dismissed the defendant's writ petition. The Supreme Court upheld this dismissal, holding that such conduct constitutes abuse of process. The power to recall a witness under Order 18, Rule 17 is discretionary and sparingly used; it is not meant to fill omissions or enable dilatory tactics. The Court dismissed the special leave petition with substantial costs of Rs. 50,000 to deter similar abuse.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.