1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6589 OF 2007 Sambhaji Hindurao Khot & anr. ..Petitioners V/s. Shamrao Ganu Pawar & ors. ..Respondents Mr.Pratap Patil, advocate, for the petitioners Mr.Bhushan Walimbe, advocate, for respondent No.7 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 12TH MARCH, 2008 P.C. . The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging an order passed by the Trial Court below “Exh.91” on 8th June, 2007. 2. At the outset, Mr.Pratap Patil seeks leave to delete the unserved respondents. Leave granted. The unserved respondents are deleted at the request of the petitioners. 3. This Writ Petition is the typical example of how the parties resort to delaying tactics so as to protract a litigation to which they are arrayed as 2 opponents or adversaries. 4. The petitioners are the original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.140 of 2000. It is undisputed before me that although, the suit is numbered as Regular Civil Suit No.140 of 2000 it is pending in the Trial Court since 1994. 5. The petitioners, who are the original defendant Nos.1 and 2 sought leave of the Court to cross examine the plaintiff. That leave was granted upon payment of costs for the delay. The costs imposed were indeed meagre. The costs imposed of Rs.350/- were not paid and an extension was sought which was also granted. After extended period also the costs were not paid. Thereafter, the application “Exh.91” was made requesting for further time and same having been rejected this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr.Pratap Patil appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would 3 abide by whatever conditions imposed by this Court including payment of additional costs. They would also co-operate in expeditious disposal of the suit. However, their valuable rights should not be forefeited. 7. Mr.Bhushan Walimbe appearing for the original plaintiff submits that the suit has been pending for more than 14 years. The delaying tactics must come to an end on some day or other. It is not that the petitioner cannot afford Rs.350/- as costs. The application (Exh.91) and the petition is thus, not bonafide. 8. I find much substance in these objections of Mr.Bhushan Walimbe. However, the petitioners having agreed to abide by all the conditions and the Writ Petition being pending in this Court for quiet some time, interest of justice would be subserved, if, last opportunity is granted to the petitioners to cross examine the plaintiff. However, the said opportunity is granted, if the petitioners pay on or before 2nd April costs 4 quantified at Rs.5000/- to the original plaintiff in the Trial Court. If costs are paid and proof is produced the Trial Court to give an opportunity to the petitioners to cross examine the plaintiff. Cross examination must be concluded in two days. The Trial Court should not adjourn the matter for cross examination at the request of the defendant Nos.1 and 2. The Trial Court to complete recording of an evidence and deliver the Judgment on or before 10th May, 2008. Petition is disposed of in above terms. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)