Judgment M.D. Shah, J.—By this petition, the petitioner – original defendant has challenged the order dated 03.09.2009 passed by the learned 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar below Exh.49 in Civil Suit No.83 of 2005. 2. Petitioner herein is original defendant in Civil Suit No.83 of 2005. Suit was filed by the respondent herein – original plaintiff against present petitioner for quashing and setting aside the revised bill of Rs. 2,11,827.23 paise and also for getting permanent injunction for reconnection of electricity. After filing of the suit, present petitioner appeared through advocate Mr. H.M. Pateliya and filed written statement before the learned Trial Court. Subsequently, during the pendency of the suit, present respondent – original plaintiff placed on record chief examination by way of affidavit dated 04.03.2009 and the matter was kept for cross examination of the respondent – original plaintiff by the petitioner – original defendant. As learned advocate for the original defendant did not remain present nor any legal representative was present on behalf of the original defendant, the Court has closed the right of cross examination of by order dated 22.06.2009. Thereafter, on 10.08.2009, Dy. Engineer on behalf of the respondent submitted application i.e. Exh.49 for reopening of right of cross examination. On the said application, the Court has passed order for further hearing and adjourned the matter. As petitioner herein – original defendant did not remain present though dates were given by the Court, on 03.09.2009, learned Trial Court rejected the said application. Hence, present petition. 3. Mr. Dipak Dave, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner herein – original defendant submitted that as Mr. H.M. Pateliya, learned advocate was sick and expired on 24.04.2009, suit could not be proceeded by the petitioner herein and so Dy. Engineer on behalf of the petitioner herein, submitted application on 10.08.2009 for reopening of the cross examination. Said application was rejected by order dated 03.09.2009. Thereafter, respondent company engaged another advocate and preferred application and on the said application plaintiff made endorsement ‘seen’. Said application was rejected by the learned Trial Court on 03.11.2009 on the ground that previously application was rejected by order dated 03.09.2009 and said order was not challenged. It is further submitted that subsequently, said order dated 03.09.2009 was challenged by way of filing appeal along with delay condonation application before the District Court. Said application was rejected by the District Court by order dated 15.03.2012. It is further submitted that subsequently, said order dated 03.09.2009 was challenged by way of filing appeal along with delay condonation application before the District Court. Said application was rejected by the District Court by order dated 15.03.2012. It is observed by the Court that it will be open for the petitioner to seek appropriate relief before the appropriate forum. Therefore, present petition is preferred by the petitioner. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Kakkad, learned advocate for the respondent herein – original plaintiff that there was gross negligence on the part of the petitioner – original defendant for not remaining present before the Court. Therefore, learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application and subsequently, after engaging another advocate the petitioner preferred application for same reason i.e. for reopening of the cross examination and same was rejected, therefore, this petition is also required to be rejected. It is also submitted that second order is also not challenged by the petitioner. 5. This Court has gone through the averments made in the petition. This Court has also considered rival contentions of respective parties. It is not in dispute that learned advocate Mr. Pateliya appearing for the petitioner expired on 24.04.2009 and therefore, suit could not be proceeded in his absence. In such circumstances, it is the duty of the Court to issue notice to the respondent. Thereafter, on behalf of the petitioner, Dy. Engineer appeared before the Court and submitted application for reopening of right of cross examination of the plaintiff. As petitioner – original defendant could not engage learned advocate nor take immediate steps for engaging advocate and as nobody remained present before the Court, the said application was rejected by order dated 03.09.2009 below Exh.49. 6. In opinion of this Court, petitioner – original defendant did not remain present before the Court though specific date was given by the learned Trial Court and did not take appropriate steps for defending the case. Petitioner is Government company and due to negligence on the part of the concerned officer, if this petition is rejected, then, it will be loss to public exchequer and so in opinion of this Court, by imposing costs, the petition is required to be allowed. If right of cross examination of the plaintiff is reopened, no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff. 7. In view of above, the petition is allowed with cost of Rs. If right of cross examination of the plaintiff is reopened, no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff. 7. In view of above, the petition is allowed with cost of Rs. 2000/ (Rupees Two thousand only). Order dated 03.09.2009 passed by the learned 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar below application Exh. 49 in Civil Suit No.83 of 2005 is hereby quashed and set aside and application Exh.49 is allowed. 8. It is submitted by Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner that as and when the matter is fixed by the learned trial court, petitioner will remain present before the court and will proceed with the matter. It is further submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that cost of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) will deposited with the Trial Court within 4 (four) weeks. 9. Petitioner to deposit Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) with the Trial Court within 4 (four) weeks. On depositing the said amount, respondent – original plaintiff will be at liberty to withdraw the said amount.