wp11434.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.11434 OF 2010. Shri Gautam s/o Pandurang Bhalerao. .. PETITIONER. VERSUS Gautam s/o Amrutrao Rohinkar. .. RESPONDENT. ... Shri Amol S. Gandhi, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri S.K. Chavan, Advocate for Respondent. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 20th DECEMBER, 2010. PER COURT: 1. Heard. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that to cross-examine the witness is a valuable right of a party and by the impugned order, the petitioner has been deprived of the said right to cross-examine P.W.1 Chandrashekhar. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, since the matter was pending before this Court and the proceedings were stayed by this Court, the petitioner carried the matter by way of LPA. The said LPA was pending and therefore, the petitioner wp11434.10 2 could not take effective steps for recalling the order dated 9th March, 2010 passed by the trial Court thereby depriving the petitioner of his right to cross-examine the witness by passing order”no cross-examination”. He further submitted that in the interest of justice, this petition may be allowed by allowing the petitioner to cross-examine the P.W.1. He also invited my attention to other grounds taken in the petition and submitted that the petition may be allowed. 3. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that final argument on the side of the petitioner are already heard. He invited my attention to the earlier round of litigation and the observations of this Court that the Election Petition is pending since 2006 and it is required to be disposed of at the earliest. 4. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the attempt of the petitioner to file application for recalling the order of “no cross-examination” was inordinately delayed and filed at belated stage after the final arguments of the petitioner were over. The trial Court has observed that even after giving wp11434.10 3 sufficient time and adjournments, petitioner failed to cross-examine P.W.1. In my opinion, the trial Court has taken a possible view on the strength of the material brought before it. That apart, it is admitted position that this Court, in earlier round of litigation, has observed that Election Petition is pending since 2006 and it is required to be disposed of at the earliest. 5. Therefore, in my opinion, the impugned order is reasonable. No interference is called for. This petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. ... PLK/*