1                                                RCS153/2012, Order below Exh.107
                                                                                                                                     (Milind +1 ­vs­ Usha and others ) 
                    

Order below Exh.107 in R.C.S. No.153/2012
(Passed on : 28/01/2019)

1] The defendant No.1 to 11 have filed instant application to set­
aside the order of no cross examination and grant of permission to cross­
examine the plaintiff No.2.

2] The   above   named   defendants   submitted   that,   the   matter   was

fixed for argument on abatement application vide Exh.55, but suddenly on
07/07/2018 the plaintiffs started adducing their evidence without supplying
the affidavit of his examination­in­chief and other documents. They have also
filed an application at Exh.104 for supplying those documents and affidavit,
but the plaintiffs failed to do so.  Therefore, on 07/10/2018 no cross order is
passed against them.   They were not intentionally absent nor negligent in
cross­examine the plaintiff No.2.   They are also ready to cross­examine the
plaintiff   No.2.   To   bring   out   the   factual   position   the   cross­examination   of
plaintiff No.2 is necessary. They therefore, prayed to set­aside the no cross
order and to allow them to cross­examine the plaintiff No.2. 

3] The  plaintiffs opposed the  application  on the  ground that  the

defendants have aware about the progress of the present case and they have
supplied the copies of documents to them.  The sufficient chances are already
granted to the above named defendants for cross­examination.  But to delay
the matter they failed to cross­examine him. Hence, their application is not
tenable and liable to be rejected.  

4] Heard learned counsels for both parties. Perused the record. The
plaintiffs   have   instituted   the   present   suit   for   specific   performance   of   the
contract, possession and in alternative refund of earnest money along with
interest thereon. On 16/01/2013 the  defendant No.1 to 11 were filed an
application to frame a preliminary issue and after filing say of the plaintiffs it
was   kept   for   argument.   But,   on   03/04/2013   the   defendant   No.1   to   11
themselves prayed for deciding the same application along with the main suit
                                                                                   2                                                RCS153/2012, Order below Exh.107
                                                                                                                                     (Milind +1 ­vs­ Usha and others ) 
                    

and therefore, the matter was proceeded further for framing of issues and
adducing evidence of plaintiff No.2 and accordingly, the plaintiffs adduced
their evidence.   Hence, it cannot be said the defendants were not aware of
the proceeding of the suit and the plaintiffs suddenly adduced their evidence.
Hence,   the   reason   given   by   the   defendant   No.1   to   11   is   not   cogent,
satisfactory and sufficient one.   

5] The defendant No.1 to 11 further contended that the matter was
fixed for abatement of the defendant No.1 and therefore, they could not have
cross­examined plaintiff No.2.   However, the plaintiffs on 05/04/2013 filed
an application at Exh.62, 63 and 64 for setting aside the abatement against
deceased   defendant   No.1   and   the   said   applications   were   allowed   on
17/07/2013   and   on   24/02/2014   the   plaintiffs   filed   the   amended   plaint.
Thereafter,   the   legal   heirs   of   deceased   defendant   No.1   were   brought   on
record   and   on   05/11/2014   the   issues   were   casted   and   after   that   on
18/04/2017   the   plaintiffs   filed   an   application   (Exh.76)   for   bringing   legal
heirs of deceased defendant No.1 on record.  Accordingly, on 31/08/2017 his
legal heirs were brought on record and the paint was amended.  After that on
26/03/2018 the plaintiffs' witness filed affidavit of examination­in­chief and
also proved documents.  Thereafter, the defendants sought adjournments but
failed to cross­examine the plaintiff No.2. Though the defendant No.12  to 15
cross­examine   the   plaintiff   No.2.   Therefore,   on   07/07/2018   no   cross
examination order of plaintiff No.2 by them is passed. Hence, the reasons
given by the defendant No.1 to 11 for not cross­examining the plaintiff No.2
are not cogent, satisfactory and sufficient one. 

6] However,   it   is   the   cardinal   principle   of   law   that   the   matter

should   not   be   decided   ex­parte   and   it   should   be   decided   on   merits   after
taking   into   consideration   the   evidence   of   both   parties.   If   the   order   of   no
cross­examination  is not  set­aside   and  the  defendant  No. 1  to 11  are  not
permitted   to   cross­examine   the   plaintiff   No.2,   then   the   above   named
defendants will be deprived from cross­examine them and to raise a proper
defence   and  thereby   an   irreparable   loss  would  be   caused  to   them,  which
                                                                                   3                                                RCS153/2012, Order below Exh.107
                                                                                                                                     (Milind +1 ­vs­ Usha and others ) 
                    

cannot be compensated in terms of money.  On the contrary if the above said
order   is   set­aside   no   loss   or   prejudice   would   be   caused   to   the   plaintiffs.
Moreover, they can be compensated in terms of money for the delay.   Hence,
I am of the considered view that in the interest of justice and as a last chance
the above named defendants be allowed to cross­examine plaintiff No.2.  For
the above said reason, I pass the following order : 

                              O R D E R

1] The application vide Exh.107 is hereby allowed. 

2] The   order   of   no   cross­examination   of   plaintiff   No.2   by   above

defendant   No.1   to   11   dated   07/07/2018   is   hereby   quashed
and set­aside. 

3] The defendant No.1 to 11 are hereby directed to cross­examine
the   plaintiff   No.2   positively   on   next   date   subject   to   costs   of
Rs.1,500/­ (Rs. One thousand five hundred only) to be paid by
them till next date. 
4] If above named defendants failed to pay the costs and failed to
cross­examine  the  plaintiff  No.2 on next date, then this order
will be automatically vacated. 
   
        Sd/­­­­
                                 ( P. N. Awale )
Date : 28/01/2019.}                           Jt. Civil Judge (Junior Division),
     Nashik­Road.