1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7073 OF 2009 Vijay D. Karir .. Petitioner versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Trupti Gohil for the petitioner. Mr.M.M.Malvankar for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Minoo N. Anklesaria, respondent No.3 in person. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 11th September 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents and 3rd respondent in person. The 3rd respondent is the constituted attorney of other respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned trial Judge has unreasonably restricted the cross-examination sought to be made by the advocate for the petitioner of the only witness examined by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. My attention has been invited to a part of the deposition recorded on 29th July 2009 in which the learned Judge has noted that the learned advocate for the petitioner was asked to complete the cross- examination by asking only “two to five or ten questions”. What is recorded in his deposition reads thus: 2 “The learned advocate is asked to complete her cross-examination by asking last two to five or ten questions. She submits that she cannot say how many questions she would be putting. When asked how much time she would be requiring to conclude the cross- examination, she says that she cannot tell. Obviously, the learnd counsel putting irrelevant questions, I did not find that the ends of justice would be served by allowing her to continue further cross- examination. The Court has already granted her more than sufficient time considering the scope of the suit. Cross-examination concluded.” 2. The submission of the 3rd respondent appearing in person is that the petitioner is interested in delaying trial and therefore a very lengthy cross- examination is sought to be made. 3. It is true that the cross-examination cannot be restricted by the trial Court by recording that only ten further questions can be put to the witness. At the same time, irrelevant and inconsequential cross-examination cannot be permitted to be made. The trial Court has to ensure that trial is expeditiously concluded. The members of the bar are expected to co- operate with the Court by putting only relevant questions in the cross- examination. It is true that the Court cannot limit the cross-examination to a particular number of questions. At the same time the advocate who is cross- examining the witness cannot insist that the cross-examination should be permitted for a particular period of time. 4. After having read the aforesaid order recorded in the deposition and the order recorded in roznama dated 29th July 2009, I find that one more opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioner to complete cross- 3 examination of the witness. However, the advocate for petitioner will have to ensure that cross-examination is not unnecessarily prolonged and no irrelevant questions are put to the witness. 5. Perused the explanation of the section officer. The same is accepted. No action is called for in that behalf. 6. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) Subject to what is observed above, the witness Mr.Anand Rane whose cross-examination has been ordered to be closed is recalled. Subject to observations made hereinabove, the advocate for the petitioner is permitted to cross-examine the said witness. (b) Hearing of the suit is expedited. (c) Writ petition is disposed of. (A.S.OKA,J)