JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the orders dated 27.04.2009 and dated 05.12.2009, both passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge (Fast Track) No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, the petitioner has approached this Court. By the former order dated 27.04.2009, the learned Judge has closed the right to cross-examine the plaintiff and by the latter order dated 05.12.2009, the learned Judge has dismissed the petitioner's application for granting an opportunity for cross-examining the plaintiff. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No.2, Tahiraddeen, along with the other respondent Nos.3 to 7 had filed a civil suit against the petitioner for cancelling the sale deed dated 19.01.2000, registered on 20.01.2000 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner filed the written statement. Thereafter, the issues were framed and the case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff on 25.04.2009. On that day, the petitioner filed an application for translation of passport of the plaintiff in Hindi. After hearing both the parties, the learned Judge dismissed the said application and fixed the case on 27.04.2009 for cross-examination of the plaintiff. On 27.04.2009, the learned counsel for the petitioner was absent and his junior again sought time for cross-examination of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's counsel objected the same and stated that the plaintiff will out of the country on 30.04.2009. Vide order dated 27.04.2009, the learned Judge closed the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff on the ground that sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner for cross-examining the plaintiff and fixed the case on 06.07.2009 for the evidence of the defendant. On 06.07.2009, the counsel for the petitioner filed an application for granting an opportunity for cross-examining the plaintiff. However, vide order dated 05.12.2009, the said application was dismissed. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. S.C. Purohit, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that while the plaintiff was granted a number of dates by the learned trial court, the learned trial court has closed the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff in hot haste. Thus, the learned Judge has not maintained parity between the plaintiff and the defendant-petitioner. Secondly, merely because of the absence of the counsel for the defendant-petitioner, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Thirdly, the right to cross-examine the plaintiff is a valuable right which could not be denied in a mechanical manner. Thus, the learned Judge has not maintained parity between the plaintiff and the defendant-petitioner. Secondly, merely because of the absence of the counsel for the defendant-petitioner, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Thirdly, the right to cross-examine the plaintiff is a valuable right which could not be denied in a mechanical manner. Lastly, the learned Judge has not given any cogent reason for closing the right to cross-examine the plaintiff. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned orders clearly reveals that the plaintiff had filed his suit on 22.03.2006. The issues were framed on 14.02.2008. On 20.10.2008, the plaintiff had submitted his affidavit. Thereafter, the case was fixed for 10.04.2008 for cross-examination of the plaintiff. However, as the Presiding Officer was busy, the case was deferred till 16.04.2009. Again on 16.04.2009, since the Presiding Officer was on leave, the case was listed for 24.04.2009. On 24.04.2009 while the counsel for the defendant No.1, cross-examined the plaintiff, the counsel for the petitioner did not do so. Instead, the counsel for the petitioner filed an application seeking translation of the passport held by the plaintiff. The said application was decided on 25.04.2009. According to the order-sheet dated 25.04.2009, the application was dismissed on the ground that whatever is written in the passport in the Arabic language, the same was translated in English in the passport itself. Therefore, there was no need for the translation to be done. Moreover, on 25.04.2009, it was clearly pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff works in the Middle East, since he would be leaving India on 30th April, 2009, therefore, the case was fixed for 27.04.2009 for cross-examination of the plaintiff. It was also clearly pointed out to the counsel for the petitioner that in case the plaintiff is not cross-examined on 27.04.2009, his right to cross-examine him would be closed. However, on 27.04.2009, while the plaintiff was present, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time. Since numerous opportunities to cross-examine the plaintiff were already given to the petitioner by the Court, vide order dated 27.04.2009 the learned Judge has closed the right to cross-examine the plaintiff. Subsequently, on 06.07.2009, the petitioner moved an application for granting him right to cross-examine the plaintiff. 6. Since numerous opportunities to cross-examine the plaintiff were already given to the petitioner by the Court, vide order dated 27.04.2009 the learned Judge has closed the right to cross-examine the plaintiff. Subsequently, on 06.07.2009, the petitioner moved an application for granting him right to cross-examine the plaintiff. 6. The learned Judge in the impugned order has clearly noticed that on every date, while the plaintiff was present and was willing to be subjected to cross-examination, the learned counsel for the petitioner kept on seeking adjournment. Therefore, the learned Judge is certainly justified in holding that a litigant cannot seek endless adjournments and still hope that his right to cross-examine would survive. Considering the fact that the petitioner was well aware that the plaintiff is working in Middle East, considering the fact the he was well aware that the plaintiff had to leave the Country, the learned Judge was certainly justified in giving a last opportunity on 27.04.2009 to the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff. The said order was certainly in consonance with Order 18, Rule 16 CPC. Despite knowing the urgency of the plaintiff and his subsequent non-availability in India, the petitioner still kept on lingering the cross-examination. Hence, the learned Judge cannot be faulted for having closed his right of cross-examination. 7. The right of cross-examination can certainly be reopened provided the petitioner is willing to bear the expenses for getting the plaintiff back from Middle East to India. However, when this option was given by the learned Judge to the petitioner, the petitioner declined to do so. Therefore, the second leg of reasoning given by the learned Judge is absolutely justified. Hence, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order. 8. In this view of the matter, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. Consequently, the stay petition is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******