(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 11133 OF 2010 Vishnudas Laxminarayan Mantri, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Agriculture, .. Petitioner R/o. Latur Lokhand Galli, Latur, (Original judgment District : Latur. debtor) versus Govindrao s/o. Sopanrao Bansode, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Agriculture, .. Respondent R/o. Latur, (Original decree Taluka & District : Latur. holder) ....................... Mr. Amit S. Deshpande, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.D. Kendre, Advocate, for the respondent. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 (2) ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23-11-2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Latur, below Exhibit 78 in Regular Darkhast No. 92/2004. 3. The executing court passed an order of "no cross" on 12-11-2010 and proceeded further against the judgment debtor. On the very same day, request for grant of opportunity was made and that was rejected. Again by moving another application, leave was sought and that was rejected on 23-11-2010. 4. Mr. Amit Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that as Advocate was busy in other matter, he could not remain present when the matter was called out and as application was moved immediately on the same date, it ought to have been granted. He points out that realizing this difficulty, other side has demanded imposition of heavy costs. 5. Mr. N.D. Kendre, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, contends that heavy costs were demanded in the (3) alternative but application was seriously opposed as judgment debtor was prolonging the execution. 6. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that an impression is created on the executing court that the petitioner / judgment debtor is delaying the execution. However, the reason disclosed is that on 12-11-2010, Counsel for the petitioner was busy before other court and hence he could not conduct cross examination. Immediately on the same day, request for setting aside "no cross" order and for permission to cross examine the witness was made and that has been rejected. 7. In the circumstances, interest of justice can be met by passing following order. 8. In the result, the petition is partily allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 23-11-2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Latur, below Exhibit 78 in Regular Darkhast No. 92/2004, is quashed and set aside. (ii) However, the petitioner is directed to pay costs which are quantified at Rs. 2,500/- [Rupees two thousand five hundred only] to the present respondent (decree holder) by 25th February (4) 2011. If the costs are so paid to the decree holder, the executing court shall permit the petitioner (judgment debtor) to cross examine the witness examined by the respondent (decree holder). The executing court shall thereafter proceed further expeditiously and attempt to decide the Regular Darkhast as early as possible and in any case, by 30th June 2011. The respective Counsel shall cooperate with the executing court in its expeditious disposal. (iii) If the costs are not so paid by the petitioner (decree holder) to the respondent (judgment debtor) within the stipulated period, the impugned order shall automatically revive. 9. Rule is made absolute accordingly. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp11133