IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMP MO No. 149 of 2008 Date of decision September 29,2008 __________________________________________________________ 1. CMP MO No. 149 of 2008 Prem Chand & others ….Petitioners. Versus Gopal Singh ….Respondent ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ CMP MO No. 149 of 2008 For the Petitioner: Shri Dalip Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Shri Vishal Parmar, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. This is the defendants petition against the order dated 4.4.2008 declining the prayer of defendant for cross-examining the plaintiff. The learned Court noticed that on 13.11.2007 defendant No.2-petitioner herein had appeared in person before the learned Court and prayed for an adjournment on the ground that he wanted to engage another counsel to plead his case. This was allowed subject to payment of Rs. 200/- as costs. The case was fixed on 4.4.2008 for cross-examination of the plaintiff, but in the post lunch session the learned counsel appearing for defendant No.2-petitioner herein filed an application praying for an adjournment. The Court also noted that cost of Rs. 200/- had not been paid and no ground for adjournment had been made out. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Learned counsel appearing for defendant No.2-petitioner submits that order cannot be sustained in law for a number of reasons alleged by him and as contained in the grounds in the petition. I have heard learned counsel for parties. I do not find that the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner are sustainable. This is a classic case where a party is manipulating the process of law to have the case fixed according to his own will and convenience. It cannot be said that learned trial Court has acted with any illegality. Cost should not be a panacea for all illegalities nor it can be used as a means for manipulating a docket of the Court. The conduct of the petitioner herein shows that on 30.11.2007 he took time to engage a counsel and was practically granted a period of three months to do so. However, instead of instructing his counsel in his case, he filed an application for adjournment on the date fixed for the cross-examination of the plaintiff. This is nothing but manipulating the process of law for personal gains and such a practice cannot be countenanced. To compound the matter, even cost of Rs. 200/- has not been paid. I was inclined to dismiss the petition but for the plaintive plea made on behalf of petitioner that one last and final opportunity is given to cross- examine the plaintiff. Without considering this case as a precedent, I allow this petition subject to the petitioner herein paying Rs. 2000/- as costs. This will be in addition to the cost of Rs. 200/- so imposed by the learned trial Court and not paid by the petitioner herein. Such cost shall be paid on the first date of appearance before the learned trial Court which is 30th October, 2008. It is clarified that in case cost is not paid on the date so fixed, this petition would be deemed to have been dismissed with all consequences and ensuing thereafter. September 29, 2008 (Dev Darshan Sud), (ms) Judge