1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4777/2008 {Lakshman Das Versus Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Another} Date of Order :: 19th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Sanjay Gangwar for the petitioner Mr. V.K. Mishra for the respondent no.2 BY THE COURT: Admit. Mr. Mishra appears for respondent no.2. Respondent no.1 is only a formal party, therefore, its service is dispensed with. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The plaintiff-respondent no.2 filed a suit for eviction in respect of disputed property, wherein the case was fixed for cross- examination of plaintiff Laxmi Narayan on 21st April, 2008. The defendant cross-examined the plaintiff in detail, but cross-examination could not be concluded on account of paucity of time. The cross-examination was deferred for 5th May, 2008. An opportunity was granted to defendant to cross-examine, but he refused to cross-examine PW-1, therefore, cross- examination was closed. The said order is under 2 challenge in this writ petition preferred on behalf of the defendant-petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he never refused to cross- examine the plaintiff on 5th May, 2008, but he moved an application for certified copy of cross-examination already made by him on 21st April, 2008 and payed for time to cross-examine on some another day, but trial court wrongly written this fact that he does not want to cross-examine plaintiff, therefore, this order may be set-aside and one last opportunity may be granted to defendant to cross-examine PW-1. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the defendant has already cross- examined PW 1 in detail on 21st April, 2008, which is clear from the certified copy, which was shown during the course of arguments. He further contended that an opportunity was granted to defendant on 5th May, 2008, but he himself refused to cross-examine the plaintiff. The trial court has rightly written a note below the cross-examination of PW-1 that plaintiff refused to cross-examine PW-1. He, therefore, contended that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same may be dismissed. 3 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order passed by the trial court. From the certified copy of the affidavit of Laxmi Narayan-PW 1, it appears that he was cross-examined by defendant in detail on 21st April, 2008, but no time was left on that day, therefore, cross-examination could not be concluded and the matter was deferred for 5th May,2008 and on that day the trial court mentioned below the cross-examination that an opportunity was granted to defendant, but he refused to cross-examine PW-1, therefore, cross-examination is closed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the application dated 5th May, 2008, wherein he prayed that he is unable to cross- examine the plaintiff for want of certified copy of his cross-examination and to prepare the case and for that purpose grant some reasonable time. After considering the said application and the order dated 5th May, 2008, I find that the trial court refused to grant more time for cross-examination of PW-1 and no specific order has been passed on the application dated 5th May, 2008 (Annexure-3) placed on record alongwith this writ petition, 4 therefore, I think it fit and proper, in the interest of justice, to grant one more opportunity to defendant to cross-examine PW-1 Laxmi Narayan on payment of cost. 7. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to cross- examine PW-1 Laxmi Narayan in continuation of his cross-examination dated 21st April, 2008. The learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondent submits that he will produce PW-1 Laxmi Narayan for cross-examination before the trial court on 8th & 9th September, 2008. The defendant may cross-examine the plaintiff PW-1 on 8th or 9th September, 2008 on payment of cost of Rs. 3000/-, which will be paid by the defendant-petitioner before cross-examination of PW-1, failing which the trial court will not allow the defendant to cross-examine PW-1 any more. 8. So far as this writ petition is concerned, the cost is made easy. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK