JUDGMENT: Heard Mr. S. G. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. G. Agni, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. S. D. Padiyar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. 4. Notice was issued to the respondents to dispose of the above Writ Petition finally at the stage of admission. 5. A short point for consideration in the above Writ Petition is the order of cross examination or liberty to cross examine to be availed by the parties in the course of the recording of evidence before the trial Court. This aspect can no longer be res-integra in view of the order passed by this Court dated 26.07.2013 while disposing of Writ Petition No. 444 of 2013 wherein the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2009(1) Mh. L.J. 683 in the case of Bhujang Nathuji Daf and another Vs Ramkrishna Daulat Daf and others has been relied upon. This Court at para 5 of the said order has observed thus: “5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and I have also gone through the records. On bare perusal of the application filed by the petitioner at para 1, it is clearly stated that the interest of the petitioner does not conflict with the interest of the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. As such, the learned Judge was justified to direct the cross examination of DW1 by the petitioner will precede the cross examination of the plaintiff. Otherwise a situation would arise where the petitioner would have an advantage over the respondent no.1/plaintiff if the petitioner is permitted to cross-examine thereafter. The view taken by me is supported by the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2009(1) Mh. L.J. 683 in the case of Bhujang Nathuji Daf and another V/s Ramkrishna Daulat Daf and others, wherein it is observed at para 11 thus : “11. As the interest of defendants No. 2 & 3 was common to certain extent with defendant No.1, the trial Court should have permitted them to cross examine defendant No.1 first and should have called upon the petitioner - plaintiff to cross examine defendant No.1 at the end. As the interest of defendants No. 2 & 3 was common to certain extent with defendant No.1, the trial Court should have permitted them to cross examine defendant No.1 first and should have called upon the petitioner - plaintiff to cross examine defendant No.1 at the end. The same course of action will be required to be followed if defendants No. 2 & 3 tender their evidence in the matter. Defendant No.1 will be required to cross examine them first and petitioner - plaintiff will be required to cross examine the purchasers/their witness at the end. In present matter, as the petitioner plaintiff has already cross examined defendant No.1, there is no option but to permit them to further cross examine defendant No.1, if they find it necessary after defendants No. 2 & 3 complete their cross examination of defendant No.1. With this liberty available to petitioner, I find that there is no merit in writ petition. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.” 6. On going through the observations referred to herein above, I find that it cannot be disputed that the defendants who are supporting the plaintiffs would have to avail of the right of cross examination, if any, first as their cross examination will precede the cross examination of the other defendants. Mr. Padiyar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 has pointed out that the stage of the cross examination has not reached as according to him, the question of, at this stage granting any relief as sought by the petitioners cannot arise. This contention of Mr. Padiayar is disputed by Mr. S. G. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as according to him, the proceedings have reached the stage of cross examination. Without going into the correctness of the rival contentions, I find it appropriate to dispose of the above Writ Petition by directing the learned Judge to proceed in accordance with observations referred to hereinabove in accordance with law. The observations of the learned Judge in the impugned orders dated 19.10.2012 and 25.03.2013 to the contrary stand quashed and set aside and shall not come in the way of the learned Judge in proceeding with directions referred to herein above. 7. Rule stands disposed of accordingly. 8. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.