IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1345 of 2011 Mrs. Razia Parvez W/O Late Mr. Gulshan Parvez and two others. … Petitioners. Versus Mr. Sikander Parvez and another. … Respondents. Mr. V.K.Kohli, Senior Advocate with Mr. I.P.Kohli, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Date July 05, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Interim Relief Application No. 6685 of 2011) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the court below to record the cross-examination of petitioner no.1 on day-to- day basis and get the same concluded on or before 23rd July, 2011. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their share in the trial court, which has been registered as Suit No. 357 of 2006, Mrs. Razia Parvez and others Vs. Sikander Parvez and another. In that suit, the issues were framed on 26-3-2009. It appears that vide order dated 14-5-2009 the suit was fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs fixing 28-5-2009. On that date, affidavit in examination-in-chief of petitioner no.1 was filed and the suit was ordered to be up for cross-examination on 8-7-2009. It appears that the petitioner no. 1 came from Sweden for her cross-examination on 8-7-2009, but the case was deferred to 10-7-2009 for her cross-examination. On that date, the case was adjourned to 13-7-2009. The defendant no.1 instead of cross- examining the petitioner no.1 moved an application to decide Preliminary Issue No.6 regarding valuation and court fee first. The case was fixed for 14-7-2009. However, the application of the 2 defendant no.1 for valuation of the property by Amin was dismissed on 20-7-2009. It appears that the cross-examination of plaintiff- petitioner no.1 as P.W. 1 was partly recorded and for remaining evidence 22-7-2009 was fixed, but on that date, the cross- examination was partly done and case was fixed for 23-7-2009. On 23-7-2009, an application was moved under Order 18, Rule 16 CPC to take evidence of P.W.1. Case was ordered to be put up on 24-7- 2009 for objection and disposal of application 149-C. The application was rejected as the plaintiff-petitioner no. 1 was to leave India on 27-7-2009. It also appears that between 30th July 2009 and 4-8-2009 the petitioner no. 1 was partly cross-examined. The grievance of the petitioner no. 1 (plaintiff no.1) is that her cross-examination has not yet been concluded by the defendants despite the order dated 31-3-2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 171 of 2008 (M/S), whereby the writ petition was dismissed but a direction was issued to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun, to consider disposing of the suit expeditiously. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 1 is living abroad and she has to come on each and every day fixed in the case from Sweden for her cross-examination and that she has come since 2009. According to the petitioners, the petitioner no.1- Mrs. Razia Parvez has to leave India for Sweden on 23-7-2011. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that a direction be given to the trial court to conclude the cross-examination of the petitioner no.1 by the said date. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that this Court vide order dated 31-3- 2008 had already directed to expedite the disposal of the suit expeditiously, in the interest of justice, the trial court is directed to make sincere efforts to get the cross-examination of P.W.1- petitioner no.1 expeditiously preferably before 23-7-2011. Unnecessary adjournments shall be avoided in the suit. 3 With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. All pending applications stand disposed of. A certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioners today on payment of usual charges. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP