These four petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment since the questions of law and fact involved are identical.

2. The respondents in all the cases have filed petitions claiming damages/compensation under the Indian Telegraph Act. In all the cases claimant-respondent No.1 filed the examination-in-chief of their witness and also produced the witness for cross-examination on 19.06.2015. Counsel for the petitioner who is the main contestant before the trial Court were not present on that day and an application was filed that since the counsel for the petitioner is not present the cases may be adjourned. This request was not accepted and the evidence of the claimant–respondent No.1 was closed without cross-examining their witness and the case was fixed for recording the evidence of the petitioner which was respondent in the Court below. Thereafter, the respondent on 22.07.2015 produced its own witness and also filed an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 praying to the trial Court that the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants (respondent No.1 herein) be recalled for cross-examination by the present petitioners. This application was rejected by the impugned