Judgment JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA This appeal has been preferred under section 4 of Delhi High Court Rules against the order of Joint Registrar dated 16.8.2007 whereby he imposed cost of Rs.5000/-because of non-appearance of the counsel and the witness for cross-examination. It is submitted by the counsel that the Joint Registrar had been fixing dates for examination of witnesses prior to 16.8.2007 and had been giving the time for cross-examinationat 2.00p.m.whenthe matterwas listedon 16.8.2007counsel for defendant along with DW1 appeared at 2.00 p.m. and found that the matter had already been adjourned before lunch and a cost of Rs.5000/-was imposed and the Joint Registrar directed for re-notifying the matter on 22.10.2007. It is stated that non-appearance of the defendant and his counsel was neither intentional nor deliberate, but it was under bona fide belief that the case would be taken at 2.00 p.m. Therefore, by this appeal a prayer is made that the order be set aside and cost imposed be waived. 2. I have perused the order dated 30.5.2007 of the Joint Registrar. It would be seen that on that date DW1 was present and he was partly cross-examined. Thereafter the Joint Registrar fixed 16.8.2007 for remaining cross-examination and specifically directed that the matter would be taken up at the end of the Board and witness shall remain present. There was no ambiguity in the order and the order was passed in presence of defendants counsel. There was no reason for defendants counsel to presume that the matter would be taken at 2.00 p.m. It is to be noted that corss-examination before Joint Registrar run for days together and very little time is left after 2.00 p.m. and for this reason, Joint Registrar started fixing all cases of evidence at the end of Board. Even on 16.8.2007 matter was called at the end of Board but when none appeared at the end of Board, the matter was taken at 1.00 p.m. Again when none appeared at 1.00 p.m., the matter was adjourned subject to cost. The subsequent order sheet would show that though stay of proceeding was specifically denied by this Court during the pendency of this appeal, on next date of hearing also adjournment was sought on the ground that DW-1 has gone to USA for treatment. 3. The subsequent order sheet would show that though stay of proceeding was specifically denied by this Court during the pendency of this appeal, on next date of hearing also adjournment was sought on the ground that DW-1 has gone to USA for treatment. 3. Considering the fact that the order was passed in presence of counsel for the defendant and there was no ambiguity in the order, I find no reason to allow this appeal and waive cost. The appeal is hereby dismissed.