JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner- plaintiffs' evidence was closed by the trial court vide order dated 24.10.2002. Then the plaintiff submitted application for re-calling the said order which was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 25.9.2004. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 3. While issuing notices to the respondents on 27.10.2004, this Court directed the petitioner to produce all his witnesses on the next date of hearing on the date fixed in the trial court, which was 29.10.2004. This opportunity was granted to the petitioners on payment of Rs.10,000/-. This Court also ordered that for any reason of the court, if the statements are not recorded then the trial court shall record the attendance of all the witnesses and shall bind them down to appear on the next convenient date. It was further ordered that in case the petitioner fails to pay or deposit the cost or to produce the witnesses, the order dated 27.10.2004, giving opportunity to the petitioner to produce the witnesses, will come to an end. However, since that was the ex parte order, therefore, this Court ordered that in case opposite party objects to recording of the statements, then further proceedings in the trial court shall remain stayed. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners deposited cost of Rs.10,000/- in the trial court and the petitioners' witnesses' examination-in-chief is complete as they filed the affidavits of the witnesses of the plaintiffs' side and since the opposite party objected to recording of the statements, therefore, they were not cross-examined and in view of the order of this Court dated 27.10.2004, the trial court's proceedings are stayed till now. 5. More than four years have passed to the order dated 27.10.2004 passed by this court and more than seven years have passed to the order of this Court from closing the evidence of the plaintiff by the trial court. Because of the order passed by this Court on 27.10.2004, the plaintiffs already submitted affidavit of his witnesses and also deposited Rs.10,000/- as cost for the defendants, then I do not find any reason to dismiss the writ petition so as to deny the plaintiffs to produce witnesses in the trial court. Because of the order passed by this Court on 27.10.2004, the plaintiffs already submitted affidavit of his witnesses and also deposited Rs.10,000/- as cost for the defendants, then I do not find any reason to dismiss the writ petition so as to deny the plaintiffs to produce witnesses in the trial court. The delay has already been compensated by cost of Rs.10,000/- but as it happens, in such type of cases, more than 41/2 years have already passed as the matter remained pending before this Court. 6. Taking a liberal view in the matter of giving opportunity to the plaintiffs to produce the evidence, this writ petition is allowed. The cost may be paid proportionately to all the defendants which has been deposited by the petitioner-plaintiffs. The trial court may fix the date for cross-examination of the plaintiffs' witnesses whose affidavit have been filed by the plaintiffs in pursuance of order of this Court dated 27.10.2004. The trial court may complete the evidence expeditiously without any further delay.Petition allowed. *******