1 wp7273.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 7273 of 2010 Mr. Ramkrishna D. Pataskar ...Petitioner v/s. M/s. Thakur Savadekar & Company Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent Mr. P.V. Dube for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Patwardhan for the respondents. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED :- FEBRUARY 22 2011. P.C. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By consent, the Petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. By way of present Petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 6th February, 2010 vide which the Application filed by the present Petitioner for setting aside no cross order came to be rejected. 2 wp7273.10.sxw 4. Heard Shri Dube, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri Patel, the learned Counsel for the Respondent. Shri Dube submits that since the Petitioner is a senior citizen of 77 years old, he was not keeping good health and therefore he could not cross examine the plaintiff's witness on earlier point of time. Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the order is self explanatory. He submits that order would depict the conduct of the present Petitioner and would show that he is not entitled to any relief from this Court. He, therefore, prays for rejection of the Petition. 5. Nodoubt that Petitioner has been unnecessarily prolonging in the trial. Though various adjournments were sought and rejected and on an earlier occasion also no cross order was passed and the same was set aside, he has not taken care to lead the evidence. In that view of the matter, in normal circumstances the Court would not have entertained the petition of the present Petitioner. However, taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner is 77 years old and further that since I am of the view that instead of closing the door on technical grounds, the Petitioner should be given liberty to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses, I am inclined to allow the Petition. Insofar as the prejudice that is caused to the respondent-plaintiff 3 wp7273.10.sxw is concerned, the same can be compensated by saddling cost. 6. Impugned order dated 6th February, 2010 below exhibit 81 is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The Application filed by the present Petitioner for setting aside no cross order below exhibit 81 is allowed. The Petitioner shall cross-examine the plaintiff on the very next date fixed in the trial Court. The plaintiff shall remain present on the said date for offering himself for cross-examination. Since the evidence of the defendant is already started, the plaintiff would be at liberty to lead additional evidence, if found necessary. 7. The Petition is allowed subject to cost which are quantified at Rs. 5000/- to be payable by the Petitioner in the trial Court on or prior to the next date. On deposit of the cost, Respondent-plaintiff would be at liberty to withdraw the same. In case the costs are not deposited before the next date in trial Court, the Petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. 8. Taking into consideration that the suit is part heard since 2004, the hearing of the suit is expedited. Learned trial Court is directed to decide 4 wp7273.10.sxw the suit as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of six months from today. (B.R. GAVAI, J)