(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6488 OF 2009 Mr. Awdeshkumar Singh s/o. Shrinath Singh, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. E-12, Gurusahani Nagar, .. Petitioner Tirupati Park, N-4, CIDCO, (Original Aurangabad. defendant) versus Smt. Budhhiraja Singh w/o. Satishkumar Singh, Age : 56 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. N-7, F-49/12, Ayodhya Nagar, CIDCO, Aurangabad, Through its General Power of Attorney, Satishkumar Singh s/o. Ramchandra Singh, .. Respondent Age : 59 years, (Original Occupation : Service, plaintiff) R/o. As above. .......................... Mr. J.N. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.K. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the respondent. .......................... (2) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 11TH NOVEMBER 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 10th September 2009, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aurangabad, below Exhibit 19, in Special Civil Suit No. 345/2007, thereby rejecting the prayer made by the present petitioner, for keeping back the matter after recess, for cross examining witness of the plaintiff. 3. It appears that there is some dispute between the petitioner, who is original defendant, and the respondent, who is original plaintiff, as to whether the matter was on board on 26th August 2009, or not. However, I do not find it necessary to go into that question of the matter. From the order itself, it is clear that the petitioner had only requested for keeping back the matter after recess, so as to enable him to cross examine witness of the plaintiff. I do not find that there was any alarming urgency, not to grant even such a small request. One pass over of the matters are granted as a matter of routine, in this court and also, in the Apex Court. 4. In that view of the matter, I do not find that it was proper exercise of jurisdiction on the part of the learned Judge to refuse for grant (3) of time even till lunch recess and to forfeit the right of cross examination. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the petition. 5. Hence, the petition is allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 10th September 2009, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aurangabad, below Exhibit 19, in Special Civil Suit No. 345/2007, is quashed and set aside. (ii) However, it is made clear that the plaintiff shall remain present before the trial court on the next date of hearing, along with his witness. The petitioner shall cross examine the witness on the said date without seeking any further adjournments. 6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp6488