IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 6271 OF 200 WRIT PETITION NO. 6271 OF 200 WRIT PETITION NO. 6271 OF 2007 Nandkumar Raghunath Menkar & anr.... Petitioner versus Ghanysham Gulabchand Mantri...... Respondent. Shri Sugandh Deshmukh for the petitioner. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 05TH DATED; 05TH DATED; 05TH SEPTEMBER, 2007 SEPTEMBER, 2007 SEPTEMBER, 2007 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. It is the case of the petitioner that when the suit was posted for judgment, the respondent moved an application, at Exh.80, for setting aside the "no cross order". The trial court allowed the application subject to payment of cost and has permitted the respondent to cross examine the witness. The said order is dated 22-1-2007. The petitioner thereafter waited for about six months and filed an application for review of the said order. The review application has been rejected and hence the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Questioning both the orders passed by the trial court, the learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, reported in AIR 1986, BOMBAY 43, AIR 1986, BOMBAY 43, AIR 1986, BOMBAY 43, submits that after the case is adjourned for judgment, such an application for setting aside the "no cross order" could not have been filed by the respondent. At this stage, I do not propose to interfere with the impugned order, as the same would result in delay in the decision of the suit which is pending since last about ten years. Leaving all questions raised in this petition, open to be urged in a regular Civil Appeal, if and in case the petitioner is required to file one, the writ petition is summarily disposed of. ....