The court's decision was influenced by the interest of justice, medical certificates, and assurances from the petitioners, leading to the setting aside of impugned orders and granting liberty to cross-examine DW1.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Ms. Agni points out that contesting respondents are respondents nos.10 & 11. Respondent no.10, Mr. Prakash Uttam Naik, is present in the Court. He states that Smt. Anuradha Prakash Naik - respondent no.11 is his wife.

4. Mr. Prakash Uttam Naik states that he has no objection if the petition is allowed. He has also tendered in writing that his wife and himself have no complaint if the petition is allowed.

5. The learned Trial Judge has, by order dtd. 4/4/2022, closed the cross-examination of DW1. By further order dtd. 27/4/2022, the learned Trial Judge has refused to recall the order dtd. 4/4/2022.

6. The learned Trial Judge has observed that there were directions from the High Court for disposal of the suit in a timebound manner. The learned Trial Judge has observed that adjournments were applied for on two occasions in the past. Learned Trial Judge has also observed that the Advocate appeared before other Courts in other matters.

7. Although the Trial Judge may have been justified in making the impugned order, the interest of justice requires that the parties do not suffer undue prejudice simply because the lawyer could not attend to the matter on a particular date. Moreover, some costs could have been imposed. Besides, in this case, medical certificates were also produced at least at the stage of recall of the order, and a scanned copy of a medical certificate was also produced when the order dtd. 4/4/2022 was made.

8. Ms. Agni has assured this Court that no further adjournments will be applied for on any grounds whatsoever. She has pointed out that the directions to the Trial Judge are to dispose of the matter by 19/7/2022, and all cooperation will be extended to ensure that the learned Trial Judge can dispose of the case. In particular, she submits that no adjournments will be sought by or on behalf of the petitioners. The cross-examination of defendant no.1 will be conducted on the date the learned Trial Judge will indicate.

9. Considering the assurances above and the medical certificates on record, the impugned orders dtd. 4/4/2022 and 27/4/2022 are hereby set aside, and the petitioners are granted liberty to cross-examine DW1. However, this liberty is granted subject to the above conditions: no adjournments will be applied for by the petitioners, and the cross-examination will be held on the date to be indicated by the learned Trial Judge.

10. The Rule in this petition is made absolute in the terms mentioned above.

11. The petitioners shall, however, pay costs of 5,000/- to Rs. respondents nos.10 & 11. The costs can be paid to the said respondents before the Trial Court.