1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1694 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.826 OF 1998 Penguin Maritime Ltd. .. Plaintiff Versus Lee & Muirhead Ltd. .. Defendant Mr.Ashwin Shankar for plaintiffs Mr.C.Balsara with B.Colabawala and Mr.N.S.Rodrigues i/b. Desai and Diwanji for defendants. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 4th December 2008 P.C. . This is plaintiff’s motion. The request is to close the evidence insofar as plaintiffs are concerned. In other words, plaintiffs state that they had already served two affidavits in lieu of examination in chief but the defendants have failed to cross examine the witness and the details of the meetings before the Commissioner 2 are set out in the affidavit in support. 2. There is a denial in the affidavit in reply. 3. However, after the matter was argued for some time, both sides agree that if the witness remain present before the Commissioner for recording evidence on 14th January 2009. The defendants will cross examine the said witness and no adjournments will be sought by the defendants for doing so. It is also agreed that on 7th January 2009 the matter be listed for directions only to enable parties to mark such of the documents as exhibits about which there is no dispute or else seek appropriate directions with regard to marking of documents. Needless to clarify that in the light of this agreement between the parties, if the defendants do not cross examine on these dates, their right to cross examine the witness shall stand forfeited 3 and no question would then arise of granting them any such opportunities. 4. In the light of the order passed on the present notice of motion and in the peculiar facts to this case, Notice of Motion No.1620 of 2008 and 1625 of 2008 need not be considered nor any orders to be passed thereon. These motions are disposed of in the light of the agreement recorded above. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)