MP 1 WP4461_10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4461 OF 2010 Shri Ashok Kartaram Agarwal and another ... Petitioners Versus Shri Ajit N. Tatiya and another ... Respondents Mr. S. D. Paigude for Petitioners. Mr. G. S. Godbole i/b. Ms. Rutuja Ambekar for Respondent No. 1. Mr. Vipin R. Kasle for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 06, 2011 P. C. : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 3rd May 2010 vide which the learned Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the present petitioners for permitting them to cross-examine the defendant No. 1. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that on the date on which the matter was fixed for cross-examination of defendant No. 1, i.e. on 22nd April 2010, the Counsel for the petitioners could not remain present as their Counsel was out of Pune on the said date. It is, however, submitted that immediately thereafter another Counsel was engaged. But, since the no objection of earlier Counsel could not be MP 2 WP4461_10 obtained, his Vakalatnama could not be acceded. He, therefore, submits that in the interests of justice, the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the petitioners to cross-examine the defendant No. 1. 4. Mr. Godbole, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 i.e. the defendant No. 1 and Mr. Kasle, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 i.e. the plaintiff, vehemently oppose the petition. It is submitted that the present petitioners are unnecessarily prolonging the trial which is directed to be concluded expeditiously by this Court. 6. It appears that on the date on which the defendant No. 1 was to be cross-examined, the petitioners could not cross-examine him due to the unavailability of their lawyers. I find that the absence of the lawyer on one day was not a ground sufficient enough, to have taken away the right of the petitioners to cross-examine the defendant No. 1. It is a settled principle of law that the procedural laws are hand-made of justice. Unless there is a willful and deliberate attempt on the part of the litigant to protract the trial, the valuable rights should not be taken away on trivial grounds. Insofar as the prejudice that is caused to the respondents is concerned, the same can always be compensated by saddling costs. 7. In that view of the matter, (i) Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (c). (ii) the petitioners would be permitted to cross-examine the defendant No. 1 on the next date of the trial which is informed to be 20th April 2011. MP 3 WP4461_10 8. Mr. Godbole, the learned Counsel states that on the said date, the defendant No. 1 shall remain present for the cross-examination. Mr. Paigude, the learned Counsel for petitioners undertakes that on the said date, the petitioners shall cross-examine the defendant No. 1. 9. The petition is, however, allowed subject to costs which is quantified at Rs. 15,000/-, each to be payable to defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff. The petitioners shall deposit the amount of Rs. 30,000/- in the Trial Court within a period of two weeks from today. On the deposit of the same, the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff would be entitled to withdraw Rs. 15,000/- each. Since the trial is already expedited, the learned Trial Court would endeavour to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of six weeks from today. 10. The parties as well as the learned Trial Court to act on the authenticated copies. (B.R. GAVAI, J)