JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Plaintiffs no.1 and 2 have filed this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing order dated 09.08.2012 (Annexure P-1), passed by the trial court, thereby closing evidence of the plaintiffs (petitioners and proforma respondent no.18/plaintiff no.3) by court order. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. 2. Counsel for the petitioners prayed that only one more opportunity may be granted to the plaintiffs for only cross-examination of the witnesses including plaintiff no.1, whose examination-in-chief has already been recorded. I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer. 3. In the impugned order, the trial court has observed that plaintiffs have been granted 16 opportunities including three last opportunities for their evidence. However, perusal of the zimni orders of the trial court, as reproduced in the revision petition, reveals that only 11 opportunities have been granted to the plaintiffs and they are not responsible for couple of adjournments out of it. It has also been observed in the impugned order that plaintiff no.1 was present and he was asked to enter the witness-box for his cross-examination. Counsel for defendants no.3 and 4 was also present for cross-examining the said witness. However, plaintiff no.1 went away from the Court without telling anything and came back after some time with his counsel. By then, counsel for defendants no.3 and 4 had left. It is thus apparent that plaintiff no. 1 had gone to call his counsel, but without informing the Court. However, the fact remains that plaintiff no.1 was present on that day for his cross-examination. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, ends of justice would be met if another opportunity is granted to the plaintiffs only for cross-examination of the witnesses including plaintiff no.1, whose examination-in-chief has already been recorded, but who remained to be cross-examined, subject to payment of costs. 5. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to contesting defendants/contesting respondents so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save the contesting respondents of the expenses they may have to bear in engaging counsel for the revision petition, if notice of the same is issued to them. 6. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. 6. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Trial court is directed to grant only one more effective opportunity to the plaintiffs for cross-examination of the witnesses including plaintiff no.1, who have already been examined in-chief, but who remained to be cross-examined, at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs precedent.