SCA/10710/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10710 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge? ========================================================= JAMIYATRAM SHIVLAL - Petitioner(s) Versus VINODKUMAR PRABHURAM & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SP MAJMUDAR for Petitioner(s) : 1,MR PP MAJMUDAR for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR DHIRENDRA MEHTA for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 18/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr.Dhirendra Mehta, learned Advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner – original SCA/10710/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT defendant has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and/or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 20.06.2005 passed below Exh.176 as well as the order dated 30.06.2008 passed below Exh.178 passed by the learned 11th Senior Civil Judge, Surat in Special Civil Suit No.572 of 1987. 3. The question is with respect to cross- examination of the plaintiff and his witness. If the defendant is not permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff and his witness, grave prejudice will be caused to the defendant. However, Mr.Mehta, learned Advocate for the respondent – original plaintiff is right in making submission that earlier the petitioner was given opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff and his witness but he did not avail the same. It is submitted by Mr.Mehta, learned Advocate for the respondent – original plaintiff that considering the fact that the Suit is of 1987 and in view of above, reasonable cost can be imposed and time bound programme be fixed so that the suit is not further delayed. 4. Mr.Majmudar, learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay reasonable cost which can be quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). 5. Under the circumstances and in view of above, the petition succeeds. The impugned orders passed by the impugned order dated 20.06.2005 passed SCA/10710/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT below Exh.176 as well as the order dated 30.06.2008 passed below Exh.178 passed by the learned 11th Senior Civil Judge, Surat in Special Civil Suit No.572 of 1987 are hereby quashed and set aside and right to cross-examine the plaintiff and his witness by the petitioner is re-opened on condition that the petitioner shall deposit Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with the learned trial Court within a period of 2(two) weeks from today and on such deposit, the respondent – original plaintiff will be permitted to withdraw the same. It is agreed between the parties that cross-examination of the plaintiff and his witness shall be completed within a period of 3(three) months from today. If any documents are to be furnished by the plaintiff, same shall be supplied / furnished within a period of 3(three) weeks from today. As the suit is of 1987, the learned trial Court is directed to decide and dispose of the suit at the earliest but not later than 31.12.2009. All concerned are directed to cooperate the learned trial Court. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted. [M.R.Shah,J.] satish