JUDGMENT 1. - In view of the notices for final disposal as issued in this case, learned counsel for the parties have been heard finally. 2. This writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 24.05.2007 as passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur in Case No. 572/2004 whereby, while rejecting an application moved by the petitioner-defendant seeking to amend the reply, the Tribunal also observed on the conduct of the petitioner that though permission to cross-examine was accorded by the order 25.10.2005 but the petitioner filed repeated applications and his only intention was to delay the proceedings; and, with reference to the stipulations of the order dated 24.10.2005, the Tribunal proceeded to withdraw the permission as granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses. 3. Though several of the grounds have been stated in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has essentially made the submissions that even if the learned Tribunal considered it proper to reject the application for amendment as moved by the petitioner, there was no justification to revoke the permission for cross-examination as granted earlier and thereby depriving the petitioner of his valuable right to defend. Learned counsel referred to the order-sheets regarding progress of the matter before the Tribunal and submitted that on several occasions, time was sought only on behalf of the plaintiff and on several of the occasions the Presiding Officer was not available either for being on leave or having been transferred and, therefore, according to the learned counsel, the entire burden of delay in the matter could not have been fastened on the petitioner alone. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent again referred to the order-sheets of the case and submitted that essentially and largely, the petitioner alone was responsible for adjournments in the matter and then, by filing repeated frivolous applications, the petitioner further attempted to obstruct the progress of the matter and to unnecessarily elongate the trial; and, looking to the overall circumstances, the Tribunal has not committed any error or illegality in exercising its jurisdiction and revoking the permission to cross-examine. Learned counsel submitted that even when cross-examination of the witnesses is permitted on application by the Tribunal, the defendant in such proceedings is not entitled to utilise such liberty only for the purpose of causing delay in the matter. 4. Learned counsel submitted that even when cross-examination of the witnesses is permitted on application by the Tribunal, the defendant in such proceedings is not entitled to utilise such liberty only for the purpose of causing delay in the matter. 4. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is of opinion that even when the conduct of the petitioner cannot be said to be forthright and cannot be appreciated, particularly in his moving earlier the application on 06.10.2006 seeking summoning of documents, after the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness was deferred on 26.08.2006 and then, even after rejection of such application on 20.01.2007, in filing another application on 01.03.2007 seeking amendment; however, the learned Tribunal could have dealt with the applications as moved by the petitioner with reasonable dispatch and, when the applications were found bereft of merits, could have rejected the same without much loss of time but then, for these reasons alone, withdrawal or revocation of the permission already granted for cross-examination cannot be said to be in accord with law or even in accord with the order dated 25.10.2005. 5. By the order dated 24.10.2005, the parties were granted permission to cross-examine the witnesses on the affidavits and then, it was observed that both the parties would complete the cross-examination without seeking unnecessary adjournments and else the proposition of revocation of permission would be given a consideration. Of course, on 24.05.2007, the learned Tribunal rejected the application for amendment of reply as moved by the petitioner but it is not borne out from the order dated 24.05.2007 that after rejection of the application, the petitioner prayed for any further adjournment. On this date or on a nearer date, if the matter was placed for cross-examination and yet, any adjournment was sought, may be, the Tribunal could have given any other option a consideration but then, it was required to be borne in mind that the rules of procedure are essentially intended to subserve the cause of justice and for decision of the matter on merits after extending opportunity to the respective parties to put forward their case rather than to punish a party to the litigation. 6. 6. The approach of the learned Tribunal in this case, in closing the right of cross-examination after feeling dissatisfied with the conduct of the petitioner, has reached to the extent of abrupt inflicting of a punishment of such a nature that the petitioner would be deprived of putting forward his defence before the Tribunal. 7. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of opinion that the later part of the order dated 24.05.2007, insofar permission as earlier accorded to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses has been revoked, cannot be affirmed and deserves to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be extended an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. 8. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case where the contesting respondent has filed the eviction petition in the year 2004 on the grounds, inter alia, of reasonable and bona fide requirement and subletting, it does appear appropriate to put the petitioner now on the terms that on failing to cross-examine the witnesses on the next date fixed in the matter before the Tribunal, he would not be extended any further opportunity. However, if for any unavoidable reason with the Tribunal, the cross-examination could not be completed on the date fixed, the same could be deferred by the Tribunal till the next date. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above; the later part of the order dated 24.05.2007 (Annex. 4), insofar the permission granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses had been revoked, stands set aside with the stipulations and observations aforementioned. There shall be no orders as to costs of this writ petition. 10. After dictation of this order, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent prays that some directions may be issued to the Tribunal concerned to decide the matter within three months or so. This Court is clearly of opinion that no further directions are required to be issued in this writ petition but it is always permissible for the parties to make their submissions before the Tribunal who could accord due consideration to such submissions. No other observations are requisite.Writ Petition Partly Allowed. *******