48-wp-4693-11.doc jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4693 OF 2011 United Spirits Ltd. ..Petitioner Vs. Dolphin Impressions Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. ..Respondents Mr. R. Chitnis i/b P.D.S. Associates for petitioner Mr. Harshad Palve for respondent no.1 CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. DATE : 12th JULY, 2011. P.C.: 1. Rule. Advocate for the respondent no.1 waives service. Respondent no.1 is the only contesting party and hence, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is one of the defendants in the suit filed by the 1st respondent. On 7th March, 2011 the suit was fixed for cross- examination of the witness Mr. R. Shankar whose affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief was filed by 1st respondent. On 7th March, 2011 an application was made by the petitioner at Exhibit 281. In the said application, adjournment was sought for cross-examination of the said witness on the ground that 1 48-wp-4693-11.doc the concerned person giving instructions was not available. 3. The application was opposed by the 1st respondent by filing reply contending that the witness was required to be called from Chennai by making expenses of Rs.15,000/-. Hence, it was contended that if this application was to be allowed, the petitioner may be directed to pay costs of Rs.15,000/-. The said application was rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order and the cross-examination of the witness was closed. 4. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, I find that a very harsh view has been taken by the learned trial Judge. In fact the reply to the application shows that the said application was not seriously contested by the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent infact prayed for grant of costs. One opportunity ought to have been granted by the trial Court by compensating the 1st respondent adequately as the witness had arrived from Chennai. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. The trial Court will have to fix a date for cross-examination of the witness. On the date fixed, the petitioner will have to cross-examine the witness without seeking adjournment on any unreasonable ground. 5. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) The impugned order dated 7th March, 2011 is quashed and set aside. The Application at Exhibit 281 is allowed. 2 48-wp-4693-11.doc The order of “no cross” is set aside. (ii) The trial Court will fix a date convenient to both the parties for cross-examination of the witness Mr. R. Shankar. On the date fixed, the petitioner shall not seek adjournment on any unreasonable ground and shall proceed with the cross-examination of the witness. (iii) Petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.15,000/- to the 1st respondent within a period of three weeks from today. (iv) Rule is made absolute in above terms. [ A.S. OKA, J ] 3