JUDGMENT F.M. Reis. J.- Heard Mr. I. Agha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. C. Fonseca, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above petition seeks to quash and set aside the orders dated 05.05.2009 and 31.01.2009 passed by the ad-hoc District Judge. Panaji, in Special Civil Suit No. 25/2000. 3. Mr. I. Agha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that the conduct of the respondent in pursuing his suit itself discloses that the respondent has been adjourning the matter on flimsy ground causing irreparable damage to the petitioners. The learned counsel further pointed out that by the impugned order dated 31.01.2009, the learned Judge has permitted the respondent to amend the counter claim filed by the respondent. The learned counsel further submitted that thereafter by the subsequent order dated 05.05.2009 the learned Judge has permitted the respondent to lead further evidence in support of the said defence and the counter claim. The learned counsel further pointed out that this exercise on the part of the learned Judge is totally in excess of jurisdiction as according to him on the earlier occasion the evidence of the respondent was already closed and the application to set aside such order came to be rejected. The learned counsel as such submits that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand. Mr. C. Fonseca, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned orders. The learned counsel has pointed out that once the amendment has been allowed, it is open to the respondent to lead further evidence in support of his case. The learned counsel further submitted that the amendment permitted by the learned Judge was to enhance the claim put forward by the respondent and as such no interference is called for in the impugned orders. With regard to the conduct pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the respondent will not seek any adjournment henceforth unless due to exceptional circumstances and shall ensure the presence of the respondent and his witnesses on the dates on which the matter is posted for evidence before the learned Judge. The learned counsel as such submits that no interference is called for in the impugned orders. 5. The learned counsel as such submits that no interference is called for in the impugned orders. 5. On perusal of records with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. I find that the first impugned order was passed in January, 2009 and the Writ Petition has been filed on 08.06.2009. It is also not in dispute that after the amendment was allowed, the petitioners have already filed an additional written c statement and additional issues have already been framed. In the background of this fact. I find that the question of interfering in the impugned order dated 31.01.2009 at such belated stage would not arise on the ground of laches itself. Hence, the above petition on that count is liable to be rejected. Considering that the next order dated 05.05.2009 is consequent to the earlier order dated 31.01.2009. I find, no ground for interference in the impugned order at this stage. Thus, the above Writ Petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioners to challenge both the impugned orders in case any adverse order is passed against the petitioners at the time of final disposal of the suit and the counter claim filed by the respondent on merits. The statement of Mr. C. Fonseca upon instructions of the respondent to the effect that the respondent will not seek any adjournment unless on account of unforeseen and exceptional circumstances in the suit and examine his witnesses on the dates fixed by the learned Judge is accepted. The respondent shall furnish the list of the witnesses before the trial Court on the date fixed for recording of evidence of the respondent. 6. Subject to the above, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Judge on 02.09.2013 at 10.00 a.m. Rule stands disposed of accordingly.