1 wp1713.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 1713 of 2011 M/s. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ...Petitioners v/s. Mr. Shantibhai Naranjibhai Patel ..Respondent Mrs. Anita Castellina i/b. Raymond Samuel for the petitioner. Mr. Dipen Furia for the respondent. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- FEBRUARY 25, 2011. P.C. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By consent, petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 7th February, 2011 thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for setting aside the order dated 29th January, 2011 which according to petitioner was to the effect of closing the evidence of the 2 wp1713.11.sxw defendant. This is a third round of litigation between the parties. The respondent has filed an application for determination of mesne profit. The said application is resisted by the present petitioners on earlier two rounds. The petitioners had approached this Court since according to them the learned trial Court did not permit their witnesses to be examined on earlier two occasions. Vide orders passed in writ petition no. 7664/2010 dated 12th October, 2010 and order dated 23rd December, 2010 in writ petition no. 9826/2010 this Court has allowed the petitions and permitted the petitioners to adduce the evidence subject to certain conditions. Vide the order in writ petition no. 9826/2010 this Court had directed the learned trial Court to decide the suit by the end of February 2011. 4. It appears that thereafter on 29th January, 2011 the defence witness no. 3 examined on behalf of the petitioner was cross-examined and the matter was kept on 7th February, 2011. The learned trial Court in the order observed that matter is adjourned to said date for arguments. However, it appears that in the Roznama an endorsement is made that matter is kept for arguments and also for examining defence witness, if any. Interpreting that the learned trial Court has closed the evidence of defendant, an application on which the order impugned has been filed came to be filed. The same is 3 wp1713.11.sxw rejected. Hence the present petition. 5. Had the petitioners been diligent enough and also read the roznama, they could have very well come to know that matter is adjourned to 7th February, 2011 for argument and evidence of defendants, if any. 6. Be that as it may, since now only one witness of the defendants remains to be examined, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, I am inclined to allow the writ petition. On the next date before the learned trial Court the petitioners shall keep their witness present and offer him for cross-examination of the plaintiff. It is made clear that on the next date if the defendants fail to examine their witness, no adjournment on any count shall be granted. 7. After the cross-examination of the witness of the defendants, the learned trial Court shall proceed to hear the matter and decide it in any case by 31st March, 2011. Further the petitioner will deposit cost which are quantified at Rs. 10,000/- to be payable to the plaintiff. The cost be deposited in the trial Court within a period of two weeks from today. On deposit of the cost, the respondent-plaintiff would be entitled to withdraw 4 wp1713.11.sxw the same. 8. Rule made absolute with aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. (B.R. GAVAI, J)