N.N. Mhatre, J.––Rule, returnable forthwith. All the respondents have been served as seen from the affidavit of service filed by the petitioners.

2. By these petitions, the petitioners impugn the Order passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Panaji, directing the petitioners to keep their witness present for cross-examination. The petitioners take exception to this order as, according to them, the trial Court could not direct a non-bailable warrant to be issued at the request of the respondents against the witness of the petitioners.

3. In 1989, Special Civil Suit was filed by respondent No. 1 against respondents No. 2 and 3 seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 26.5.1986. The plaint was subsequently amended and respondents No. 4 and 5 were joined as party defendants as they claim to have an agreement prior in point of time for purchase of the suit property. The petitioners were thereafter added as the defendants to the suit since the petitioners had purchased the property by a Sale Deed dated 28.12.1995. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 amended the plaint incorporating the necessary averments and claiming an additional relief of declaration that the Sale Deed dated 28.12.1995 was null and void. All the defendants to the suit including the petitioners had filed their respective written statements. The trial Court has framed several issues. The evidence was led and the plaintiff i.e. respondent No. 1 has concluded its evidence. The other defendants have also concluded their evidence.

4. On 15.10.2003, the petitioners filed affidavit-in-evidence of their constituted attorney one Samir R. Audi. Cross-examination commenced on that day. However, there was no cross-examination by respondents No. 2 and 3. The cross-examination of respondents No. 4 and 5 remained inconclusive on that day and the matter was adjourned by the Court for want of time. On 5.11.2003, the petitioners prayed for an adjournment as the witness was ill. This application was rejected by the trial Court. After rejecting the application, the trial Court heard the arguments of the parties on the aspect whether the deposition of Samir Audi recorded thus far could be struck off. Respondent No. 1 submitted that the entire evidence of that witness should be struck of. Whereas, respondents No.2 and 3 submitted that since the witness had already been cross-examined by respondents No. 2 and 3, the evidence could not be struck off. The matter was then fixed for orders on 12.11.2003. On that day, the trial Court did not pass orders on the arguments heard by it, instead on an application made by respondent No. 1 for issuing non-bailable warrant against the said witness, orders were passed on 14.11.2003 by the trial Court. The trial Court was of the view that since respondent No. 1 should not be caused any prejudice, the evidence of the witness should be kept open the petitioners were directed to make their witness available on the next date of hearing. The petitioners had also submitted before the trial Court on the same day that the application made by the first respondent for issuance on non-bailable warrant against the petitioners' constituted attorney, was not maintainable. By an order of 25.11.2003, the trial Court passed the impugned order directing issuance of non-bailable warrant against the witness. It is these orders dated 14.11.2003 and 25.11.2003 which are being impugned by this petition.

5. Shri S.S. Kantak for the petitioners submits that once the application for adjournment made by the petitioners on 5.11.2003, on the ground that the witness was unwell was rejected, the trial Court should have closed the evidence of that witness. He submits that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to issue the non-bailable warrant at the instance of respondent No. 1 against the petitioners' witness. He submits that the Court could not have compelled the petitioners to examine any particular witness nor could it force the petitioners to produce the witness for cros