1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6483/2007. Smt.Prem Kumari Saxena. VERSUS Smt.Kailash Joshi and Others. 12.09.2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.Sanjay Mehrishi, for the petitioner. Mr.Rinesh Gupta, for the respondents. ***** Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.08.2007 by which the petitioner's right to cross examine the plaintiff has been closed. The case was fixed for cross examination of the plaintiff's witness and on the same day an application (Annexure-2) was filed before the court by the defendant stating therein that since the previous evening counsel for the defendant has been suffering from viral fever as well vomiting and loose motions as such he was unable to attend the court and the case may be adjourned for cross examining the witnesses on another date. The said application was rejected by the learned court below vide order dated 03.08.2007 and the right of the defendant to cross-examine the witnesses of the 2 plaintiff was closed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an opportunity in the interest of justice, in the facts and circumstances looking to the circumstances which were mentioned in the application dated 03.08.2008 ought to have been allowed. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order and has contended that on previous occasions also similar opportunities were granted but the defendant failed to cross examine the plaintiff's witness. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. So far as the objection of the learned counsel for the defendant is concerned, it may be stated that the fact that on previous dates the defendant did not cross examine the plaintiff's witness is not important. The point at issue is whether there was sufficient cause for adjournment of the case on 03.08.2007 on the grounds 3 mentioned in the application (Annexure-2). There is nothing to controvert the fact as mentioned in the application filed by the defendant-petitioner and merely on account of the past conduct the application seeking adjournment on 03.08.2007 for the purpose of cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses could not have been dismissed when the facts as stated in the application were not controverted the application seeking adjournment on account of illness deserved to be allowed. In the facts and circumstances, I deem it just and proper to allow this writ petition. In the interest of justice and learned trial court is directed to afford an opportunity to the defendant to cross examine the plaintiff's witness. Subject to the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.