( 1 ) wp3626.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3626 OF 2011 Ramesh s/o. Nagorao Kalyan, Age. 50 years, Occ. Business & Agri. R/o. Naigaon (Bz), Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded. .. Petitioner VERSUS 1. Sow. Mahananda w/o. (disputed & denied by the petitioner) Ramesh Kalyan, Aged. 47 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Talani, Tq. Biloli, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Respondents 2. Nagorao s/o. Manikrao Kalyan, Age. 77 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. Naigaon (Bz), Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded. 3. Suresh s/o. Nagorao Kalyan, Age. 47 years, Occ. Business & Agri. R/o. Naigaon (Bz), Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded. 4. Subhash s/o. Nagorao Kalyan, Age. 43 years, Occ. Business & Agri. R/o. Naigaon (Bz), Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded. Mr. A.G. Godhamgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 30.09.2011 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned Counsels appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally at the stage of ( 2 ) wp3626.11 admission. 2. The writ petition is filed against an interim order dated 29th April, 2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Biloli, rejecting the petitioner’s application in Special Civil Suit No. 17 of 2009, seeking permission to cross-examine respondent No.1 and her witnesses. 3. Respondent No.1 filed her suit for maintenance etc. alleging that she is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and that she has a daughter from him. She said that her marriage with the petitioner took place long back in 1980 and since he treated her with cruelty, she was constrained to leave him etc. Although the suit is filed rather belatedly, none the less the petitioner has to defend it on merits. He filed written statement denying the relationship. 4. At the time of recording the evidence it seems, the petitioner is not finding courage to cross-examine respondent No.1. On number of occasions, he sought adjournments, changed his advocates and despite various opportunities given by the learned Judge of the Trial Court, he could still not muster courage to cross-examine respondent No.1. Ultimately, in the process the learned Judge on two occasions forfeited his right to cross- examine respondent No.1 and her witnesses. What is pertinent to note here that despite this the petitioner ( 3 ) wp3626.11 kept on making application after application seeking leave of the Court for cross-examining respondent No.1 and her witnesses. Last of such application was dismissed through the impugned order dated 29th April, 2011. 5. After going through the order it is clear that the learned Judge of the Trial Court out of sheer exasperation passed this order. None the less I am inclined to give the petitioner one opportunity to contest the case on merits, because though the petitioner can be accused of causing unnecessary delay, yet, he is persistent with his efforts to contest the suit on merits. However, such indulgence would come with costs of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand). 6. The petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is given opportunity to cross- examine respondent No.1 and her witnesses. He is also permitted to give his own evidence. The parties shall appear before the learned Judge of the Trial Court on 17th October, 2011. The petitioner shall deposit costs of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) on that day in the Trial Court. On failure to do so, this writ petition shall stand dismissed. In case the costs is deposited on that day in the morning session itself, the petitioner shall be allowed to cross-examine respondent No.1 and thereafter the learned Judge of the Trial Court ( 4 ) wp3626.11 shall take up this case as far as possible on day-to-day basis. I hope this order would put some sense in the petitioner and he would conduct the case promptly. 7. Rule made absolute accordingly. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] snk/2011/SEP11/wp3626.11ok