Judgment M.M. Sundresh, J. 1. This original side appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the order of the learned single Judge, by which, the application filed in Appln.No.291 of 2012 in I.P.No.46 of 2010 was dismissed. 2. The appellant herein is the debtor. During the pendency of the Insolvency Petition filed in I.P.No.46 of 2010, an application has been filed in Appln.No.291 of 2012 seeking leave of the Court to cross-examine P.W.1, whose evidence has been closed as the learned counsel appearing for the appellants reported no instruction. The said application was dismissed by the learned single Judge keeping in view of the provision contained in Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that as the appellant was sick, there is lack of communication between the appellant and the counsel. As a result, the appellant could not report on time. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant reporting no instructions, the evidence has been closed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the appellant being a lady, an opportunity will have to be given. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the appellant has been dragging on the case. The appellant has been given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the creditor viz., P.W.1. As there is no bona fides in the application, the Court below has rightly dismissed the said application and no interference is required. 5. It is not as if the appellant has filed the application before the Court below to examine the respondent afresh or to fill up the lacuna. The judgment relied upon would apply to the case in which a party seeks to file an application seeking to recall or re-open the examination of witness for the purpose of filling up the lacuna and when there is no due negligence. Further more, the averments made by the appellants were not even denied by the respondent by way of a counter. There is also no material to disregard the averments made by the appellants. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appellant will have to be given an opportunity to cross-examine P.W.1. Further more, the averments made by the appellants were not even denied by the respondent by way of a counter. There is also no material to disregard the averments made by the appellants. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appellant will have to be given an opportunity to cross-examine P.W.1. As discussed above, it is not as if, the appellant wants to introduce a new case. On the contrary, the appellant wants to cross-examine P.W.1. Therefore, considering the above said facts, we are of the view that the order of the learned single Judge refusing to afford an opportunity to cross-examine P.W.1 is bad in law. It is further to be noted that P.W.1 has filed an affidavit and he has not come before the box. 6. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned single Judge and allowed the application filed by the appellant. However taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is directed to cross-examine P.W.1 on 15.03.2013. P.W.1 is directed to be present for cross-examination before the learned Master on that day. The respondent is also permitted to re-examine P.W.1 in pursuant to the cross-examination on the very same day. It is made clear that if the appellant has not utilised the opportunity, the order of the learned single Judge in dismissing the application would revive. The original side appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.