1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent.

2. By this writ petition the legality and correctness of two orders passed by the Civil Judge are under challenge. The first order is of 03.10.2011 by which application vide Exh.54 has been allowed and the second order is of 16.01.2013, by which the petitioners' application vide Exh.66 has been rejected.

3. The application vide Exh.54 was filed by the contesting respondent Nos.1A and 1B, the original plaintiffs and application vide Exh.66 was filed by the petitioners, the original defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 respectively. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the original defendant Nos.3 and 4. The suit has been filed for delivery of possession and mesne profits.

4. It so happened that the contesting respondent No.1A, who is a partner of plaintiff firm filed her affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief on 15.03.2010 and it was accordingly taken on record. Thereafter on 25.08.2011, an application (Exh.54) was moved on behalf of the plaintiff firm that respondent No.1A, due to blood pressure, did not keep well and as in any case all the affairs of the firm were looked after by her husband, Vasant, it would