// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3270/2008 Mahesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Chaturbhuj and Another Versus The Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake, Distt. Jaipur and Another Date of Order ::: 14.07.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri O.P. Mishra, Counsel for petitioners Shri R.K. Agrawal, Counsel for respondent #### By the Court:- Learned counsel for the respondent has filed an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution for vacating the ex-parte stay order dated 4th April, 2008. However the learned counsel for the respondent did not press his application and contended that the writ petition itself may be heard finally. The learned counsel for the petitioners has no objection in case the writ petition is heard finally. The application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution is accordingly dismissed. Admit. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance which was fixed by the // 2 // trial court for examination of plaintiff's witness Ram Babu Agrawal. The learned counsel for the defendants filed an application in the trial court to adjourn the case for cross- examination of plaintiff's witness on the ground that his counsel is ill. The trial court closed the cross-examination of plaintiff's witness and fixed the case for defendant's evidence. The said order closing the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness is under challenge in this writ petition preferred on behalf of the defendants. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent contended that the only purpose of defendants is to delay the proceedings, therefore, in spite of granting time on three occasions, the plaintiff's witness was not cross-examined by them, therefore, the petitioners deserve no leniency, however, he submits that the present writ petition may be allowed but a reasonable amount of costs may be imposed on the defendants and a date may be fixed for cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness Ram Babu in the trial court. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and, in view of the statement of learned counsel for the // 3 // plaintiff-respondent, I allow this writ petition and set-aside the impugned order dated 15th March, 2008 passed by the trial court and direct both the parties to remain present in the trial court on 30th July, 2008 and on that date the plaintiff's witness Ram Babu Agarwal will remain present and the counsel for the defendants will cross-examine him. In case he is not cross- examined for any reason whatsoever then trial court will fix the case on 31st July, 2008 for the said purpose. The defendants will pay costs of Rs.1000/- to the plaintiff. It is made clear that in case the defendants do not cross-examine Ram Babu Agarwal on that date or fails to pay the amount of costs before his cross-examination then this writ petition will be deemed to have been dismissed and no further opportunity will be granted by the trial court in this regard. So far as this writ petition is concerned, there will be no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//