ORDER Aravind Kumar, J.—Petitioner has challenged the order passed by XVII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes dated 23-2-2013 in HRC No. 10052 of 2011 whereunder application filed by the writ petitioner seeking recalling of P.W. 2 has been dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/-. Heard the arguments of Sri Ramesh, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri Venkataramana, learned Advocate appearing for respondent. Perused the impugned order. 2. Respondent herein has filed an eviction petition under Section 27(2)(a) and 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 seeking eviction of the petitioner herein and for a direction to pay arrears of rent from December 2009 till date of eviction. Respondent herein had got herself examined and subsequently, a witness has also been examined on behalf of the petitioner as P.W. 2. P.W. 2 was partly cross-examined by petitioner herein and subsequently evidence was closed. Impugned order would indicate that several interlocutory applications had been filed by petitioner herein under different provisions and they came to be disposed of on merits and sufficient opportunity was given to the writ petitioner to cross-examine P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and also to lead evidence. Trial Court has noted that despite granting sufficient opportunity to writ petitioner, no further progress has been shown and the intention of the writ petitioner is not bona fide and her only intention is to drag on the proceedings and she was adopting delay tactics. Trial Court has rightly observed that the Karnataka (Case Flow Management in Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2005 and Section 42 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 mandates that petitions filed under Rent Act are to be disposed of within six months and trial should be conducted summarily. It is noted by Trial Court that writ petitioner has taken more than 3 adjournments and after taking the totality of the case, I.A filed by petitioner herein for recall P.W. 2 has been rejected. There cannot be any fault found on the findings recorded by Trial Court. 3. However, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner contends that if P.W. 2 is not cross-examined, certain admissions cannot be elicited from her and he undertakes to proceed with cross-examination of P.W. 2 and also tender evidence before Trial Court on such terms and conditions as this Court may impose for disposing the matter. 4. 3. However, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner contends that if P.W. 2 is not cross-examined, certain admissions cannot be elicited from her and he undertakes to proceed with cross-examination of P.W. 2 and also tender evidence before Trial Court on such terms and conditions as this Court may impose for disposing the matter. 4. Per contra, learned Advocate appearing for respondent would contend that writ petitioner has been dragging on the proceedings before Trial Court on one pretext or the other and unless and until petitioner is put on terms, proceedings before Trial Court will not be concluded and as such, he prays for dismissal of the petition or in the alternative to put writ petitioner on terms, if P.W. 2 is to be recalled. 5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the statement of objections filed by writ petitioner, I am of the considered view that one final opportunity is required to be extended to writ petitioner to avoid any further technical plea being taken subsequently when the proceedings get concluded and to pre-empt any such plea being taken. Hence, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to grant writ petitioner one more opportunity to cross-examine P.W. 2 and lead her evidence. Parties are directed to co-operate with the Trial Court and they shall strictly follow the time schedule as fixed for disposal of the case in the manner states herein below. Hence, following order is passed: 1. Writ petition is hereby allowed. 2. Order dated 23-2-2013 is hereby set aside and I.A filed under Order 18, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 filed by writ petitioner is hereby allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,500/- to be paid to the respondent. 3. Payment of cost as ordered shall be condition precedent for proceeding with the cross-examination of P.W. 2. 4. Parties shall co-operate with the Trial Court in final disposal of the petition according to the following schedule: 17-6-2013 - For appearance of parties and cross-examination of P.W. 2. 19-6-2013 - Evidence of respondents both examination in chief and cross-examination. 20-6-2013 - Further evidence of respondent if any. 21-6-2013 - Arguments of petitioner and respondent. 4. Parties shall co-operate with the Trial Court in final disposal of the petition according to the following schedule: 17-6-2013 - For appearance of parties and cross-examination of P.W. 2. 19-6-2013 - Evidence of respondents both examination in chief and cross-examination. 20-6-2013 - Further evidence of respondent if any. 21-6-2013 - Arguments of petitioner and respondent. Within three days from the date of concluding of arguments, Trial Court is at liberty to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. 5. In the event of petitioner herein (respondent before Trial Court) not co-operating with the Trial Court, it is at liberty to proceed with the matter on merits and regulate its proceedings by imposing costs on the respondent therein if thought fit. 6. Sum of Rs. 5,000/- already deposited before this Court, shall be refunded to the writ petitioner.