:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1196 OF 2008 Shri Omprakash Satyanarayan Singh ...Petitioner Versus Smt. Yasinbee Shami Mohammed ....Respondent ====== Mr.M.V.Holamagi, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.Santaram S. Redekar, Adv. for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 21ST FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. This Writ Petition is filed by the Original Defendant in a Civil Suit No. 7200 of 2000 on the file of the Bombay Civil Court challenging an order dated 6.10.2007 passed in Notice of Motion No. 4354 of 2006. The Notice of Motion was filed with a prayer that the order passed by the court on 8.11.2006 be recalled and the petitioner-defendant be allowed to cross-examine the plaintiff. :2: :2: :2: 2. The court recorded on the Notice of Motion the fact that the matter is of 2000 and earlier three opportunities were granted to the petitioner but the petitioner-defendant did not cross-examine the plaintiff. Mr.Holamagi, disputes this and states that the matter has been appearing intermittently after framing of Issues in 2003. He had complied with the earlier order, deposited the costs and cross-examined the witness on 11.10.2003, but, after the matter was adjourned to 8.11.2006 he was engaged in other commitments and could not reach the court in time. In such circumstances, last opportunity ought to have been granted. 3. Mr.Redekar, appearing for the original plaintiff-respondent submits that the motion taken out in the Trial court is fourth in line. Earlier three Notice of Motions for recalling of the order were moved and on each occasion, time was granted to cross-examine, but, the petitioner did not avail of that opportunity. 4. After hearing both sides and perusing with :3: :3: :3: their assistance the impugned order, I am of the view that interest of justice will be subserved, if one last opportunity is granted to the petitioner/original defendant. This opportunity is granted because Mr.Holamagi, makes a statement that in no case the petitioner-defendant will seek an adjournment but will co-operate and cross-examine the other witness and the plaintiff on the date and time stipulated by this court. 5. Mr.Holamagi, states that he will give first preference to this matter and will attend the court. In the view of this statement, if the petitioner and Respondent, so also, their Advocates appear before the Trial Court on 11.3.2008 at 11.00 a.m. the petitioner-defendant shall be permitted to cross-examine the witness on that date and on such date as the cross-examination may be adjourned, if incomplete. Needless to state, that if the petitioner, so also, his Advocate remains absent, no further extension nor any opportunity will be granted. No request to recall the orders also will be entertained in any circumstances. This order is passed considering :4: :4: :4: that the petitioner-defendant earlier appeared and Mr.Holamagi’s appearance as recorded above. However, for the inconvenience to the respondent-original plaintiff, the petitioner shall pay costs quantified at Rs.1,000/- to him within a period of 1 week from today. sd/- ***********