JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against orders dated 17.7.10 (Annexure 4 & 6) passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Deedwana in Civil Suit No. 37/08, whereby the applications preferred by the petitioner/defendant seeking time to cross examine the witness produced on behalf of the plaintiff has ben refused and the right of the petitioner/defendant to cross examine the plaintiff witness Subhash Chand, stands closed. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the court below has seriously erred in refusing to grant time to the petitioner/defendant to cross examine the plaintiff's witness on the ground that the petitioner/defendant is adopting delaying tactics. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, vide order dated 15.5.10, the trial court directed to make a request to the District Judge, Merta City to transfer the matter to some other court. On the next date i.e. 5.7.10, the counsel for the parties were not present inasmuch as, the advocates were abstaining from work on the call of the Bar Association and, therefore, the counsel was not aware that the District Judge has refused the request made for transfer of the matter. Learned counsel submitted that on 15.7.10, the counsel for the plaintiff made an application seeking time to cross examine the witness which was rejected by the trial court with cost Rs. 500 and, thereafter, yet another application preferred seeking time for depositing the cost and avail the opportunity of cross examination was also dismissed. Learned counsel submitted that the cost was to be paid by the plaintiff and, therefore, the counsel for the plaintiff was justified in praying for adjournment. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner/defendant has no intention to delay the proceedings and he is ready to cross examine the witness to be produced on behalf of the plaintiff on the next date to be fixed by this court. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent drawing the attention of this court to the order sheets drawn by the trial court, submitted that the petitioner/defendant is delaying the disposal of the matter on one or another pretext and, therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the trial court was absolutely justified in closing the petitioner/defendant's right to cross examine the plaintiff witness Subhash Chand. Learned counsel submitted that the orders impugned do not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference by this court. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case after considering the rival submissions, this court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate that the petitioner/defendant is granted one more opportunity to cross examine the plaintiff witness. The delay caused in proceedings of the suit can be compensated by payment of cost to the respondent/plaintiff by the petitioner/defendant. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned dated 17.7.10 passed by the court below are set aside. It is directed that the plaintiff shall produce his witness Subhash Chand before the court below for cross examination on 6.9.10 and the defendant shall be permitted to cross examine him. It is made clear that if the petitioner/defendant fails to avail the opportunity to cross examine the witness on afore-mentioned date, his right to cross examine the witness shall stand closed. The respondent/plaintiff shall be entitled for cost Rs. 1,500/- from the petitioner/defendant.Writ Petition Allowed. *******