1 W.P.No.8355/10 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.8355 OF 2010. Ayyub S/o Yousuf Pathan, Age about 39 years, Occ. Business, R/o Akkalkuwa, Tq. Akkalkuwa, Dist. Nandurbar. ... Petitioner. Versus Bhika S/o Chandu Khatik, Age 65 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o Akkalkuwa, Tq. Akkalkuwa, Dist.Nandurbar. ... Respondent. ... Mr.J.R.Shah, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.C.R.Deshpande, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 21.06.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2 W.P.No.8355/10 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The present petitioner is the original defendant facing a suit for eviction. The plaintiff led his evidence. The present petitioner failed to cross-examine the plaintiff, as such 'no cross' order came to be passed. The said order was set aside. Subsequently, again the petitioner failed to cross-examine and the Court passed the order of 'no cross' for the second time. Thereafter, an application is moved for setting aside 'no cross' order. The same is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 4. Mr.Shah, learned counsel submits that the order passed is too harsh. The advocate could not remain present for cross-examination. As such the order of 'no cross' came to be passed. The defendant could not remain present due to his ill-health. According to the learned counsel an opportunity deserves to be given to 3 W.P.No.8355/10 the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff and his witnesses. 5. Per contra, Mr.C.R.Deshpande, learned counsel for the Respondent vehemently opposes the petition and states that the petitioner is intentionally prolonging the matter. He is in possession of the property of which eviction is sought and so deliberately the petitioner is not cross-examined. Ample opportunity has been granted to the petitioner, still, the same is not availed by him. Earlier also the trial Judge had given opportunity to the petitioner to cross- examine the plaintiff, still, the same was not availed. The learned counsel submits that no error can be found in the order passed. 6. The suit in question is dealing with the tenancy rights of the present petitioner. No doubt, the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting the case. The petitioner has given reasons that he was not well at the relevant time. There is nothing to disbelieve the said statement. Taking into account the nature of 4 W.P.No.8355/10 dispute, I feel it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff, however, subject to payment of costs. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The application Exh.27 in RCS No.27/2008 is allowed subject to condition that the petitioner pays cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) to the Respondent within a period of four (4) weeks from today. 8. Rule accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (A) and (B). The trial Court shall expeditiously dispose of the suit. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp835510 5 W.P.No.8355/10