IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 156 OF 2010 MR. RABINDRA A.L. DIAS ... Petitioner Versus MRS. ELIZA D'SILVA AND 2 ORS. ... Respondent Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. C.A. Coutinho, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 18th August, 2010 P.C.: Heard learned Counsel on behalf of the parties. The petitioner is plaintiff in RCS No.171/1998/C. Plaintiff's evidence has been closed by order dated 10/02/2010, which is assailed in this Writ Petition. 2. There is no dispute that from 10/12/2007, at least the plaintiff had sought twenty adjournments. The figure is fourteen, as per learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The learned trial Court was pleased to give last and final opportunity to the plaintiff to lead evidence on 25/09/2009 and again on 1/02/2010. The learned trial Court has also noted in the impugned order dated 10/02/2010 that on the last hearing i.e. 1/02/2010, last and final opportunity was given to the plaintiff to lead evidence. The learned trial Court also has noted that the matter is about twelve years old. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that at least one more opportunity be given to the petitioner/plaintiff to examine an engineer and if need be, subject to costs. It appears that the engineer's name was not even cited though an application was filed to examine him. 3. Considering the facts of the case, the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court cannot be said arbitrary and is in accordance with law. Parties are expected to be very diligent and take all steps required with right earnestness when a last and final opportunity is given to the parties and not simply ignore such orders as has been done in this case. When such orders are made they are expected to be complied and not treated as a joke. This is not a fit case for interference. Writ Petition accordingly disposed off. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH