:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 334 OF 2009 OF MOTION NO. 334 OF 2009 OF MOTION NO. 334 OF 2009 AND AND AND NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 337 OF 2009 OF MOTION NO. 337 OF 2009 OF MOTION NO. 337 OF 2009 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO. 1336 OF NO. 1336 OF NO. 1336 OF 1988 1988 1988 Dr. Arun S. Prabhu. ... Plaintiff. V/s. M/s. Rizvi Builders & Ors. ... Defendants. Mr. K. Shroff i/b. Dhru & Co. for the Plaintiff. Mr. Kawli i/b. M.J. Shetty for Defendant No.1. Mr. M. Rathod i/b. A.A.S. Shaikh for Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 22ND 22ND 22ND JANUARY 2009. JANUARY 2009. JANUARY 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . By consent, the Notice of Motion is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. These are the Notice of Motions by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 for recalling of the order closing evidence, which was passed on 5th January 2009. 3. It is stated that as far as the First Defendant is concerned, through inadvertence, a statement was made that the First Defendant does not wish to further cross examine the witness. The statement was made on account of lack of communication and by inadvertence and for these reasons, :2: the First Defendant should not suffer. More so, when the matter has been placed now before Court for recording of evidence. 4. For the reasons stated in the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion No.337 of 2009, the request to recall the order dated 5th January 2009 is granted, provided the First Defendant paying costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-. Costs will be paid within a period of one week from today. 5. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have also moved similar Motion and have stated that the Advocate engaged by the Second and the Third Defendants has not kept them informed about the matter and in fact took no steps after 6th December 2004. In these circumstances, their case should not suffer and they be permitted to cross examine the witness/plaintiff. They state that they will not seek unnecessary adjournments and will remain present for cross examination of the Plaintiff on the date and time stipulated by this Court. 6. For the reasons set out in the affidavit filed in Motion No.334 of 2009, the request to recall that order at the instance of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 is also granted. However, they shall pay costs quantified at Rs.5,000/- to the Plaintiff. Costs to be paid within one week from today. Place this Suit for recording of evidence on 10th :3: February 2009 at 3.00 p.m. Needless to state that if the Plaintiff remains present but the Defendants and/or their Advocates are absent, the order dated 5th January 2009 would revive and the Defendants’ right to cross examine the Plaintiff shall stand forfeited. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)