1 CAW2154.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION kj WRIT PETITION NO.8701 OF 2007 IN REVISION APPLICATION NO.56 of 2005 IN NOTICE NO.1080 OF 2002 IN RAE & R SUIT NO.93/339 OF 1984 A N D WRIT PETITION NO.9317 OF 2007 IN REVISION APPLICATION NO.57 OF 2005 IN NOTICE NO.1081 OF 2002 IN RAE & R SUIT NO.92/338 OF 1984 The Bakhtawar Constructions Co. (Pvt) Ltd., ..Applicants Vs Vallabh G. Kabra & Anr. ..Respondents ---- Coram : A.S.OKA,J Date : 24/9/2010 PC 1 Perused the report submitted by the learned trial Judge. In the report, it is stated that the learned Judge took charge of the 2 CAW2154.10.sxw post on 14.9.2009. He has stated that till the date of report i.e. 30.6.2010, cross-examination of the 3rd witness of the plaintiff has been recorded in total 16 sessions. Learned Judge has noted in the report as to what was transpired from 9.6.2010. He has stated that lot of time was consumed for hearing of the arguments on the admissibility of the documents and passing orders thereon. Therefore, the learned Judge has sought extension of time by period of one year from 30.6.2010. 2 In the Civil Application No.2154 of 2010 filed by the petitioners, a grievance has been made that the respondents are not co-operating for expeditious disposal of the case and especially in recording cross-examination of PW-4. 3 Considering what is stated in the report, time for disposal of the case deserves to be extended till 30.6.2011. Respondents are directed to co-operate with the learned trial Judge for meeting the dead-line. If any of the witnesses examined are residents of the distant places, it is expected that both the parties will co-operate with the Court and ensure that witnesses are not required to make frequent visits only for the purpose of recording evidence. If the learned Judge finds that any of the parties are not co-operating for expeditious disposal, it will be open for the learned Judge to bring the said fact to the notice of this Court by submitting a report. Judge 3 CAW2154.10.sxw CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2154 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8701 OF 2007 IN REVISION APPLICATION NO.56 OF 2005 IN NOTICE NO.1080 OF 2002 IN RAE & R SUIT NO.93/339 OF 1984 A N D CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2156 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9317 OF 2007 IN REVISION APPLICATION NO.57 OF 2005 IN NOTICE NO.1081 OF 2002 RAE & R SUIT NO.92/338 OF 1984 The Bakhtawar Construction Co.(Pvt) Ltd., ..Applicants Vs. Vallabh G. Kabra & ors. ..Respondents ---- Mr.Vineet Naik, Sameer Tapia, & Ms.Prachiti Darda i/by ALMT Legal for the applicants. Ms.Shehal Ratnakar for respondent nos.1 & 2. 4 CAW2154.10.sxw CORAM : A.S.OKA,J DATE : 24.9.2010. PC 1 Heard learned Counsel for the applicants. In view of the separate order passed in the Writ petitions on the reports submitted by the learned trial Judge, no order is required to be passed as regards prayer clauses-(a) & (b). Prayer clauses-(c) & (d) cannot be granted in disposed of Writ petitions. As regards prayer clause-(e) is concerned, a direction has been already issued. Hence, applications are disposed off. JUDGE