1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 374/2009 Gopalkrishna Gaurishankar Agarwal vs. Wamanrao Manikrao Pol - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 9 th FEBRUARY , 2009 Heard Shri G.R.Agrawal, Advocate, for the petitioner and Shri P.V.Thakre, Advocate, for Respondent. 2. The writ petition arises out of the order of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, which read thus- “At this juncture , Advocate for plaintiff refused to cross-examination saying that, he has requested to file and place the application on record. Application is being decided, plaintiff being orders cross examination by Advocate. Application for adjournment filed by plaintiff is rejected, learned 2 advocate for stated that, he want to challenge the order, till date he was not cross examine though there was specific order to cross examine the witness, as earlier was challenged. Plaintiff's advocate challenge the order, hence it is treated as no cross.” 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff/petitioner, the adjournment application for cross examination of the plaintiff was rejected and the defendant had led his evidence and the plaintiff wanted to cross examine the witness, but the adjournment application was filed, which was rejected. The evidence seems to be proceeded in default of cross examination by the plaintiff. 4. An application under Section 24 of C.P.C. was filed before this Court. The same was rejected. Then L.P.A. No. 9/2009 was preferred. By the order in LP.A. No. 9/2009, the application 3 is to be now considered by the Single Judge of this Court. 5. Considering the overall circumstances, it is necessary to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to cross examine the defendant by setting aside the impugned order in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the order to proceed in default of cross examination of the plaintiff is hereby quashed and set aside. It is informed that the matter is fixed on 13/2/2009 before the trial court. Hence, petitioner/plaintiff is allowed to cross examine the witness Rambhau Ambulkar on that day. Petition disposed of. JUDGE Rvjalit