1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5224 OF 2008 Sukhdev Mahadu Kadam and others ...Petitioners Versus Shri Balaji Maharaj Mandir Trust Raver, Tq. Raver, District Jalgaon ...Respondent ..... Mr. Milind Patil, advocate for the petitioners Mr. G.V. Wani, advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 4.9.2008 passed below Exh.95 and order dated 4.7.2008 passed below Exh.98 in the proceeding of R.C.S. No. 61 of 1996, by the learned C.J.J.D. Raver thereby refusing to revoke the order of forfeiting the right to cross examine. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to the contents of the application and submitted that the petitioners herein could not collect the amount to pay costs as well as 2 the fees of the advocate, and therefore, it was not possible to cross examine the plaintiffs on the date fixed for cross examination. Learned counsel submitted that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be given to the petitioner herein to cross examine the plaintiff. Therefore, learned counsel prayed that this writ petition may be allowed. 3 Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that on perusal of the reasons recorded by the court below in the impugned order, would clearly show that there is constant attempts by the petitioners to get the adjournments, therefore, he submitted that the petition may be dismissed. 4 After hearing counsel for the parties and after perusal of the orders impugned in the writ petition, I am of the considered view that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is required to be given to the petitioners to cross examine the plaintiffs. 5 It is true that the adjournments have been sought by the petitioners herein for cross examination of the plaintiff, however, the fact that the suit is of the year 1996 and the plaintiffs have completed their examination in chief on 14.12.2007, cannot be lost sight of. Therefore, since the suit is pending from 1996, the chief examination is conducted on 14.12.2007, the interest of justice would serve if one 3 more opportunity is given for cross examination of the plaintiffs. Therefore, writ petition is partly allowed. The parties to appear before the trial court and get the date fixed for cross examination of the plaintiff and on the date fixed by the trial court, the petitioner or their lawyer, as the case may be, shall cross examine the plaintiff and shall not ask for any further adjournments. 6 The petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.1000/- in the lower court, within a week from the date of receipt of this order. The respondent will be at liberty to withdraw the said amount. 7 Writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) rlj/