1 wp5399.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION No. 5399 OF 2011 Ambadas Jagannath Bankar and others PETITIONERS -VERSUS- Kachru Mohan Bankar RESPONDENT ...... Shri S.S. Kazi, advocate for the petitioners Shri. V.D. Sapkal, advocate for respondent. ...... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 5th September, 2011. PER COURT : 1. The present petition is filed against the order refusing to set aside `no cross order'. 2. Shri Kazi, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court has failed to take into consideration the circumstances which prevented the petitioners to cross examine the respondent and the witnesses. The trial Court has taken very technical approach. The interest of justice demands that the petitioners should have been given an opportunity to cross examine the respondent and his witnesses. 2 wp5399.11 3. Shri Sapkal, the learned Advocate for the respondent submits that the matter was reserved for judgment on 18.12.2009 and the next date for judgment was given on 4th January, 2010, hence already the case was reserved for judgment. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Arjun Singh V/s Mohindra Kumar and others" reported at "1964 A.I.R. 993" and two judgments of the learned Single Judge of this Court i.e. in the case of "Wasudeorao Babasaheb Sonone and another V/s Jagannath Ramlalji Jugele" reported at "1985 Mh.L.J. 565" and in the case of "Shri. Dinkar S/o Pandhari Gole V/s Shri. Vitthal S/o Namdeo Bobde & ors" reported at "2010(1) All M.R. 766". 4. The dates narrated above i.e. on 18.12.2009, the suit was reserved for judgment and the next date for judgment was given as 4th January, 2010 is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the present application was filed on 05.01.2010. In view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Arjun Singh V/s Mohindra Kumar and others referred supra followed by the two learned Single Judges of this Court referred supra, the Court becomes functus officio once suit is reserved for the judgment. The Supreme Court has observed that there is no hiatus between 3 wp5399.11 reservation of judgment and pronouncing of the judgment. 5. In the light of that the present Writ Petition cannot be entertained. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Needless to mention here that, in case the petitioners are required to file an appeal and if they file an appeal, they can agitate the orders impugned in this petition if otherwise it is permissible in law as per the provisions of Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. The petitioners have deposited an amount of Rs. 3000/- as per directions of this Court. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the petitioners are allowed to withdraw the said amount. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE ga s/wp 5399.11