JUDGMENT 1. - The writ petition has been preferred to challenge the order dated 13.10.2007 Annexure-4 by which order, petitioner's application was decided. 2. Petitioner submitted an application for giving her chance to lead evidence however, the said application was then dismissed by the court by the impugned-order. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier her witnesses were present along with affidavit for cross-examination but it is non-petitioner who could not cross examine those witnesses who remained present in the court and thereby chance of cross examination of those witnesses by the non petitioner was closed. Aggrieved by the said order, non-petitioner approached the Hon'ble hjigh Court and this Court vide its order dated 19.04.2006 allowed the non-petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of the petitioner at the cost of Rs. 2000/- and it was further made clear that if non-petitioner herein will fail to cross examine the witnesses on 16.05.2006, the order challenged by the non-petitioner will remain in force. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, on 19.04.2006 the petitioner presented her witnesses who were then cross examined by the non-petitioner from 10.00 a.m. to 12.45 p.m. since the court hours were upto 1.00 p.m., hardly any time was left to cross-examine any oiher witnesses but the chance to produce those witnesses was closed by the court below on the ground that as per the direction of the High Court, all the witnesses were required to be presented by the petitioner. The application so moved by the petitioner for giving her chance to lead evidence was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though her witnesses were present on earlier occasions but non-petitioner failed to cross-examine them now, when those witnesses were re-produced and due to paucity of time, cross-examination could not be made further even it is assumed that out of three witnesses, only one witness remain present on 16.3.2006 then also looking to the paucity of time, cross-examination of the witnesses was not even possible. 3. In those circumstances, it is prayed that the petitioner may be given one chance to produce her witnesses. 4. Learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2 submits that matter is pending since long and she is a widow lady thus, if any chance is given to the petitioner to re-produce her witnesses then, it will be an occasion of delaying the matter further. 5. 4. Learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2 submits that matter is pending since long and she is a widow lady thus, if any chance is given to the petitioner to re-produce her witnesses then, it will be an occasion of delaying the matter further. 5. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner submits that even if in the interest of justice, petitioner is given chance to produce her witnesses then it may be made clear that as and when the witnesses are produced, cross- examination should be completed possibly on one date. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 is that court below may further be directed to decide the matter within a period of three months thereafter. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, he has no difficulty to produce the witness on the next date fixed and a further direction may also be given to the court below to decide the matter within the time frame work. 6. Looking to the agreement on some issues, it is directed that the court below may permit non petitioner No. 2 to cross examine left out witnesses of the petitioner on the next date and if the cross-examination is not completed on the aforesaid date for one or the other reason then, it shall be completed on the next day or days. The court below is further directed to expedite the matter looking to the long pendency of the matter and decide the same within a period of three months thereafter. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.Writ petition disposed of as per above direction. *******