1 wp-6046-11 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6046 of 2011 Harbhajansingh Kohli .. Petitioner Versus Pravandeep Jasbirsingh Sethi .. Respondents Mr. P. J. Thorat for the Petitioner Mr. Ashok Goswami with Mr. Nilesh Masurkar for the Respondents CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 7th DECEMBER, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Rule. With the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The above Petition takes exception to the Order dated 28-4-2009 passed by the 8th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune, by which Order, the Application Exhibit 36 in Special Civil Suit No.1232 of 2005 for setting aside the no cross Order filed by the Petitioner/Defendant came to be rejected. 3 It is not necessary to burden this Order with unnecessary facts. Suffice it to say that “no cross order” was passed by the Trial Court on 21-12-2006, which was set aside on 17-11-2007. However, inspite of the setting aside of the said Order the cross-examination of the Plaintiff was 2 wp-6046-11 not taken by the Defendant and therefore, no cross Order was once again passed on 10-3-2008. The Application in question in which the impugned Order has been passed was thereafter filed on 11-10-2008 which has now being rejected by the impugned Order dated 28-4-2009. The aforesaid facts prima facie disclose the manner in which the proceedings are being conducted by the Petitioner/Defendant. However, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner attributes the same to the old age of the Petitioner/Defendant and the large number of suits filed by the Respondent herein against him. It appears that the Petitioner herein is about 80 years old and there are four proceedings filed by the Respondent herein for recovery of the amount against him. By an order passed in Writ Petition No.4608 of 2011, the four suits have been tagged together for being heard on the same day, in view of the said fact that the parties are the same and the Petitioner / Defendant is more than 80 years old. In my view, though there is some indolence and negligence on the part of the Petitioner/Defendant in prosecuting the said suit, one last indulgence is required to be shown to him in the matter of cross-examination of the Plaintiff’s witness. More so, in view of the fact that all the suits have now been tagged together. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 28-4-2009 is quashed and set aside and the Petitioner/Defendant is resultantly permitted to cross-examine the Plaintiff on the day that would be fixed by the Trial Court. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states 3 wp-6046-11 that the cross-examination would be completed by the Petitioner/Defendant as would be directed by the Trial Court. 4 In my view, the interest of justice would be served if the Petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs.15,000/- to the Respondent/Plaintiff within a period of four weeks from date. The benefit of this Order would enure to the Petitioner/Defendant only if he pays costs as directed by this Order. In the event, the costs are not paid, the above Petition would be deemed to have been dismissed. 5 Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)