1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LPA NO. 180 OF 2009 WITH X OBJ. IN WRIT PETITION NO. 419 OF 2007 (Harishchandra Miyamal Jasnani & Ors. vs. Smt. Rukhminidevi Lalaprasad Gupta & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. AUGUST 07, 2009. Heard Shri Dangre, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Hedaoo, learned counsel for the respondents. The contention is after the defendants/ present appellants were given an opportunity to cross examine plaintiff, reliance upon the earlier order sheets of learned trial Court is misconceived and after the appellant completed cross examination of plaintiff, the matter was never fixed for cross examination of defendant or then for arguments. Reliance is being placed upon the provisions of Order 18, Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code to urge that such stage-wise fixing is contemplated by it. Support is being taken from the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Maimuna Begam, reported at AIR 1994 Bom. 353, particularly paragraph 9. Shri Hedaoo, learned counsel for the respondents is supporting the orders passed. 2 We find that as per order sheet dated 11.10.2000, the trial Court had already fixed the matter for cross examination or for arguments on 19.10.2000. On 19.10.2000, an application was moved by the appellant for adjournment for cross of plaintiff and on the next date on 1.11.2000, the defendant or their counsel, when the matter was called out, were not present and hence the matter was adjourned to 7.11.2000 for arguments. On 7.11.2000, the defendant and his counsel were present and the counsel for the defendant cross examined plaintiff and left the Court. Though the defendant was present, he was not examined. It is in this background that the Court closed the matter for judgment. We, therefore, do not find anything wrong with these stages taken by the trial Court in the matter. The case was already for arguments on 19.10.2000 before giving opportunity to the appellant and then it was for arguments again on 7.11.2000 when the opportunity to cross examine was given to the appellants. The insistence of the appellants for stage wise fixing by placing reliance upon provisions of Order 18, Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code is, therefore, misconceived. The judgment of Division Bench of this Court is not relevant in the present facts. Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.