-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.9107 OF 2007 Vilas Dajiram Kashid : Petitioner/ Plaintiff V/s. Mahesh Vilas Kashid & Ors. : Respondents/ Defendants ... Mr.S.S.Patwardhan with Mr.A.A.Joshi for the petitioner. None present for the respondents. ... CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATE : APRIL 02, 2008. P.C. Heard Mr.Patwardhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Rule, returnable forthwith. 2. The respondent nos.1 & 2 are represented through the respondent no.3, who is the paternal uncle and guardian, and the respondent no.3 has filed affidavit-in-reply. Hence, the petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith. -: 2 :- 3. The petitioner has filed Regular Civil Suit No.59 of 1999 for a declaration that the Sale Deed dated 25.1.1999 is illegal and void. After his evidence was closed and the defendant has filed an affidavit in examination-in-chief, the plaintiff submitted an application at exh.70 praying for leave to examine additional witnesses who were attesting witnesses of the Sale Deed and this application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 20.11.2007. The learned Judge of the trial Court noted that during the inspection conducted by the District Court, Regular Civil Suit No.59 of 1999 was directed to be decided within one month and the defendant had already filed an affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. On these counts, the application was rejected. 4. Mr.Patwardhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the suit is still pending without any further progress and the defendant’s cross-examination has not yet commenced. I have perused the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent no.3. It appears from the same that the respondent no.3 has been appointed as the guardian of the respondent nos.1 & 2 as per the order passed by the Court in Misc. Civil Appeal No.135/2000 and 29/2002. The affidavit further points out that the trial of the suit -: 3 :- was adjourned on six different dates and the plaintiff did not utilise the opportunity to adduce additional evidence. It would be appropriate that the petitioner is given a last chance by imposing exemplary costs and if he does not examine his witnesses on a given date, the suit would proceed further by cross-examination of the defendants’ witnesses. 5. Hence, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The application at exh.70 filed in Regular Civil Suit No.59/99 is hereby allowed and, consequently, one of the attesting witnesses to the Sale Deed under challenge is allowed to be examined as witness for the plaintiff, subject to the plaintiff depositing an amount of Rs.1,000/- by way of costs with the trial Court within a period of two weeks from today. The witness will be produced before the Court on the next date as has already been given by the trial Court and the plaintiff will not seek any further adjournment for the same. The trial of the suit is expedited. 6. The rule is made absolute accordingly. B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.