ISHWARLAL MALI RATHOD versus GOPAL AND ORS.

ISHWARLAL MALI RATHOD versus GOPAL AND ORS.

The SLP was dismissed because the petitioner misused repeatedly granted adjournments, failed to avail multiple opportunities (including last chances with costs) to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness, and therefore the trial court and the High Court were justified in closing his right to cross-examine, making dismissal of the SLP appropriate.

Parties
Petitioner Defendant: Ishwarlal Mali Rathod; Respondents Original Plaintiffs: Gopal and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Special Leave Petition Challenging High Court Order Dated 17.02.2021
Outcome
SLPs dismissed.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Repeated Adjournments, Delay in Disposal of Suits, Right to Cross Examination, Eviction Suits, Duties of Advocates and Courts, Access to Speedy Justice
Administration of Justice Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Repeated Adjournments Delay in Disposal of Suits Right to Cross Examination Eviction Suits Duties of Advocates and Courts +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ishwarlal Mali Rathod

Petitioner Defendant

Gopal and Ors.

Respondents Original Plaintiffs

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Special Leave Petition Challenging High Court Order Dated 17.02.2021

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court and High Court were justified in closing the defendant's right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness due to repeated adjournments
  2. 2 Whether repeated and routine adjournments amount to abuse of process and may be curtailed by courts
  3. 3 What is the duty of courts and advocates in preventing delay in the justice delivery system

Ratio Decidendi

The SLP was dismissed because the petitioner misused repeatedly granted adjournments, failed to avail multiple opportunities (including last chances with costs) to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness, and therefore the trial court and the High Court were justified in closing his right to cross-examine, making dismissal of the SLP appropriate.

Court Disposition

SLPs dismissed.

Orders

  • Special Leave Petitions dismissed.