1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 82/09 [Narayan Wakde ..vs.. pramilabai Deshpande & ors ] =================================== CORAM: S.R. DONGAONKAR, J. DATE:16.3.2009 . Heard Shri Khandalkar, Advocate for petitioner and Shri Agnihotri, Advocate for respondents. Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hinganghat in Regular Civil Suit No.207/1985 below Exhibit 100 by which the application of the defendants for allowing them to cross examine the plaintiff was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the adjournment was sought on the ground that the counsel could not appear due to his personal difficulty and therefore, there could not be any cross examination on the date fixed and as such the learned trial Judge should have allowed that application; in the interest of justice, cross examination of the plaintiff should have been permitted , instead order of closing the cross examination on 16.11.2008 was passed, which was not correct. Learned counsel for the respondent by referring to the reasons in the order contended that it is perfectly justified. The defendants were granted proper and ample opportunity to contest the matter. Same was not availed, therefore, the impugned order is not liable to be interfered with. I have gone through the impugned order. Learned trial Judge has considered the fact that the matter was as old as of 1984 and the plaintiff was of 84 years age. He has observed that reasons for adjourning the matter is the presentation of various types of application and pendency 2 of different proceeding arising out of cause of suit. It is necessary to reproduce observations made by the Trial Judge while passing the impugned order, particularly in paragraph 7 & 8; thus: “7] It is also matter of fact that the evidence of plaintiff was started on 27.2.2008, o that day plaintiff adduce her evidence by way of affidavit Exh.42. The verification was carried out on 26.2.2008 and cross of the defendant was started from 11.7.2008 and adjourned for recess period. Thereafter, recess period the matter was adjourned. Therefore, the matter was kept on 19.7.2008 for cross examination, on that day defendant submitted an application for production of document it was allowed and cross was deferred till 26.7.2008. On 25.7.2008 adjournment application was submitted by the defendant so cross was adjourned till 2.8.2008. Thereafter, on that day application Exh. 98 was submitted and the said application was rejected by this court and matter was posted for order on 8.8.2008. On 8.8.2008 the counsel of defendant was absent so cross examination of plaintiff was not concluded and order of no further cross was passed and thereafter pursis Exh.99 was submitted indicating that plaintiff did not want to lead further evidence and matter was posted for evidence of defendant on 22.8.2008 and thereafter on 22.8.2008 the present application Exh.100 was presented. The above facts indicates that the matter was was adjourned on the various application of defendant and for two occasion cost was imposed on defendant. The matter was posted for order of no further cross order by rejecting the adjournment application of the defendant on 2.8.2008 as per Exh.98 so, this was intimation to defendant to cross examine the witness and it was one more opportunity for him to cross examine the witness. The grounds cited in the application Exh.100 might have been put by putting such application on 22.8.2008. But the defendant did not do so and make a statement that this advocate is going to appear after the recess 3 period. The counsel defendant was absent when called at that time defendant submits that his advocate left Nagpur and going to attend the proceeding within half an hour. The old age plaintiff waited 4.30 p.m. But defendant did not cross examine her. Defendant did not submitted adjournment application also so, I think sufficient opportunity was given to defendant. 8] I perused the medical certificate and grounds of the application but I think as the same ground were not submitted by the defendant and even defendant did not orally informed about the inability of his counsel because of illness of the close relative. Considering the above facts, I think the ground stated in the application are not sufficient for using the inherent power under section 151 of C.P.C. as sufficient opportunity was given to defendant. I am of the opinion that the learned trial Judge was right in rejecting the application for fresh permission to cross examine the plaintiff as more than enough opportunity was granted. Petition has no merit. It is dismissed. Prayer of the petitioner for staying the effect & operation of this order for 15 days is also rejected. JUDGE smp.