1 WP-4831and ors. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4831 OF 2010 U.Raghavendra Acharya and ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. Mr.S.AjitSingh Bedi and ors. ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4832 OF 2010 U.Raghavendra Acharya and ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. Mr. Krishan Jathan. ..Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3504 OF 2010 U.Raghavendra Acharya and ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. Mr.S. Manmohansingh Bedi and ors. ..Respondents. Mr. R.M.Nakhawa, Advocate i/by Vasant Dhawan for the Petitioners. Mr. Jaydeep Deo,Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 1st October, 2010. P.C. :- 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2 By the order impugned in these petitions, the 2 WP-4831and ors. application made by the petitioners who are original plaintiffs seeking permission to examine Mr. N.J. Sethana as a witness by interposing the evidence of the first petitioner, has been rejected. 3 The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the examination of the said witness is required to prove the Gift Deed dated 20th June, 1986. He submitted that as the recording of the evidence of the petitioner is being inordinarily delayed, the said application was made to ensure that the evidence of Mr. Sethana was recorded expeditiously who is an important witness to be examined by the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that the respondents have never delayed the proceedings of the suits and that they are ready and willing to cooperate to the learned Trial Judge for expeditiously completing the recording of the evidence of the first petitioner who is in the witness box. 4 In view of what is recorded above, at this stage, it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, these petitions are disposed of by passing the following order:- 3 WP-4831and ors. ORDER a) The learned Trial Judge shall complete the recording of the evidence of the first petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 15th December, 2010. The petitioners as well as the respondents will co-operate with the Trial Court for completing the recording of the evidence of the first petitioner within time schedule fixed. If the Trial Court finds that one of the parties is not co-operating in spite of this order, the Trial Court is free to submit a report to this Court in that behalf. As and when the report is submitted, the same shall be immediately placed for orders before the appropriate Court. Needless to say that, it will be open for the petitioners to examine Mr. Sethana as a witness after conclusion of the recording of evidence of the first petitioner. It will be open for the petitioners to apply to the Trial Court for recording common evidence of Mr. Sethana in all pending suits. b) The Trial Court to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the registry of this court. Judge