1 wp-8740.10 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8740 OF 2010 Harishchandra B. Vartak. .. Petitioner. Vs Smt. Rehana Hasan Mithagari. .. Respondent -- Shri Rahul More i/by Shri Uday Warunjikar for the Petitioner. Shri D.S. Sabnis for the Respondent. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22ND DECEMBER, 2010 P.C: . . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. Considering the narrow controversy involved in the petition, the same is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. The Petitioner is a Defendant in a suit for possession filed by the Respondent-Plaintiff on the ground of bonafide requirement. The challenge in this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 18th October, 2010 passed by the learned Trial Judge. 3. It appears that the Trial Court passed an order on l7th October, 2010 closing the cross-examination of the Respondent-Plaintiff. 2 wp-8740.10 The Petitioner made an application dated 19th October, 2010 for setting aside the said order. By the impugned order passed on the same day, the said application was allowed by passing the following order:- “Order dated 7.10.2010 is hereby set aside, subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- ( Rupees five hundred only ) and witness should be examined today itself, else application would stand rejected.” 4. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that a reasonable time ought to have been granted by the Trial Court to deposit the amount of costs and to cross-examine the Respondent-Plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent pointed out that the Petitioner has been successfully delaying the disposal of the suit by one method or the other and, therefore, no interference is called for. 6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. By the impugned order, the application made by the Petitioner has been allowed. However, the learned Judge directed that the costs amount should be paid on the very day and the witness should be cross-examined on the very day. The order appears to be harsh, in the sense that a reasonable time ought to have been granted by the learned Trial Judge to pay costs and to cross- examine the witness. 7. In the process, the suit filed by the Respondent on the ground 3 wp-8740.10 of bonafide need has been delayed. Therefore, while permitting the Petitioner to cross-examine the Respondent, a time bound schedule will have to be fixed. 8. Hence, I pass the following order. ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 18th October, 2010 is modified by permitting the Petitioner to deposit the amount of costs on or before 7th January, 2011. (ii) The Trial Court will fix a date in January, 2011 for cross-examination of the Respondent. It is made clear that the Petitioner will cross-examine the Respondent on the said date and will not seek adjournment on any unreasonable ground. (iii) Hearing of the suit is expedited and the Trial Court shall make an endeavour to decide the suit before the end of June, 2011. (iv) The Petition is disposed of on above terms. (A.S.OKA, J )