The Delhi High Court on Monday gave petitioner Mohd Abid one final opportunity to cross-examine a key witness in his ongoing property dispute case against Sahiba Kosar Qureshi. The court made it clear that this chance would come with strict conditions, including a hefty cost of ₹50,000 to be paid to the wheelchair-bound witness.
Background
The case stems from a trial court order dated 9 July 2025, where the cross-examination of the respondent (PW-1) was abruptly closed. Abid’s counsel argued that he had been unwell and had already informed the opposing side about his inability to attend. However, the trial judge noted that another lawyer, who had signed the vakalatnama (formal authority letter), was present in court and could have continued the questioning.
When the matter reached the High Court, Justice Girish Kathpalia heard both sides. Abid’s counsel maintained that the substitute lawyer had not been given time to prepare, while Qureshi’s lawyer opposed reopening the cross-examination but added that he had “no serious objection” if it was allowed once more under suitable terms.
Court’s Observations
Justice Kathpalia noted the inconsistency. “One of the counsel signatory to the vakalatnama was indeed present in court, and there was no recorded request from him for time to prepare,” the judge observed. He also highlighted that the witness had already been examined extensively in the past.
Still, the bench acknowledged the broader principle that cases should ideally be decided on merits, not defaults. The judge stressed the added sensitivity of the matter since the respondent is wheelchair-bound and has already endured repeated appearances.
Decision
Balancing both sides, the court allowed Abid just one final opportunity to complete the cross-examination of Qureshi. This is subject to him paying ₹50,000 directly to her by demand draft on 10 September 2025, the date fixed before the trial court.
The judge warned that failure to pay the cost would mean the opportunity stands forfeited, and the witness will not be called again.
With that, the petition was disposed of, leaving the fate of Abid’s case hanging on his compliance with the strict condition.
Case: Mohd Abid vs. Sahiba Kosar Qureshi
Date of Decision: 8 September 2025
Petitioner’s Argument: He was ill and had informed in advance; the other counsel present was not prepared.
Respondent’s Stand: Witness already examined extensively; no strong objection if one last opportunity is given with conditions.
