1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 2741/2009. ( Nijamuddin Bashirddin and others -: versus :- Annauddinkha Nazaruddinkha and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 4, 2010. Shri Amol Mardikar, vehemently argues that having rejected the permission to cross defendant no.1 once, the trial Court by impugned order reviewed the same and again permitted the defendant no.1 to be cross examined. He invites attention to the earlier order and also to later order to point out the circumstances in which the orders have been passed. According to him, later order dated 27.04.2009 impugned before this Court is without jurisdiction and unsustainable. Shri A.A. Naik, learned counsel for respondents on the other hand contends that the court has recorded valid reasons and only opportunity has been given to the respondent/plaintiff to cross examine the defendant no.1. He therefore, states that no interference in the matter is warranted. 2 Though the learned counsel for petitioners is right in his contention. I find that in peculiar situation use of discretion by the trial Court cannot be labeled to be wholly erroneous or misplaced. Opportunity to cross examine as given will result in an adjudication on merits and hence, I am not inclined to defeat the same. However, in the situation the petitioner /defendant cannot be made to suffer and I find cost of Rs.600/- awarded by the trial Court to him is inadequate, hence the same are raised to Rs.3000/-. The cost be paid by 28.02.2010 before the trial Court. If the costs are so paid, the trial Court shall permit the respondents/plaintiffs to cross examine petitioner / defendant no.1 and shall proceed further with the trial of the suit. Rule accordingly. JUDGE Rgd.