JUDGMENT Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The short controversy involved in this petition is regarding the trial Court negativing request of petitioners for time to cross-examine the respondent/applicant in a proceeding under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Needless to state that the said rejection was made after the respondent had adduced her evidence. After rejection of the application for time to cross-examine the respondent, the petitioners moved another application on the next date. The trial Court rejected the same by order dated 30.7.2013 observing that the matter was pending for cross-examination of the witness by the petitioners for a period of one year. The trial Court rejected the said application on the count of petitioners prolonging the matter without any reason. 3. Mr. V.N. Patre, learned Counsel for the petitioners, strenuously made an effort for justifying seeking of time by the petitioners on 18.7.2013. It is submitted that the petitioners along with the relatives were attending the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Nanded and the said proceedings were decided by judgment and order on 5.7.2013. It is submitted that since the certified copy of the said judgment and order was received by them only on 17.7.2013, the learned Counsel for the petitioners in trial Court could not go through it and as such was not in a position to cross-examine the respondent on 18.7.2013 and was forced to seek the time. It is submitted, hence, the rejection of the application by the trial Court in such situation was erroneous. 4. Ms. Mrunal Shesh, learned Advocate for the respondent, countered the aforesaid submission and submitted that the trial Court has correctly observed that the petitioners were prolonging the matter since a year. 5. After giving anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by both the sides and after examination of the relevant order and the record placed before this Court and even accepting the correctness of the submission that the Court of Sessions decided the proceedings on 5.7.2013 and certified copy of the same was available to the Counsel for the petitioners only on 17.7.2013, still it is difficult to accept that there was justification for seeking the time before trial Court on the said count. Needless to add, concerned proceedings are pending before the Court of I.M.F.C. since 2010. Needless to add, concerned proceedings are pending before the Court of I.M.F.C. since 2010. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has not pointed out any matter for faulting with the observation made by the trial Court that the matter for the cross-examination of the respondent was pending for a period of one year. Hence, it is difficult to find any justification as tried to be canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 6. However, considering the drastic effect of an order passed by the trial Court, it appears that penalty of an extreme nature is imposed and grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if the matter is proceeded without permitting them to cross-examine the respondent. The same is obvious as basically the evidence of the respondent would be of a vital importance in such proceeding and in the event of the same remaining unchallenged due to respondent remaining to be cross-examined, the petitioners would not be able to place their case rightly before the Court. The cardinal principle of law requires both the parties receiving a fair and equal opportunity in the proceedings. Having regard to the same, for serving interest of justice, the order passed by the trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. However, for the laches on the part of the petitioners of prolonging the matter, they deserve to be penalized. 7. Resultantly, the Criminal Writ Petition is allowed and the order dated 30.7.2013 passed by the trial Court as well as the earlier order dated 18.7.2013 of not granting the time to the petitioners are hereby quashed and set aside subject to the petitioners depositing cost of Rs.3000/- within two weeks before the trial Court. Upon such compliance, the trial Court shall fix the date and proceed with the matter. The petitioners shall cross-examine the said witness, i.e. the respondent on the date fixed by the trial Court and shall cooperate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the proceeding before it. Needless to add, the trial Court shall decide the said proceedings as expeditiously as possible. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.