ORDER : 1. Petitioners are the defendants 1(a) to 1(d) in O.S. No. 176 of 2000. Being aggrieved by the order dated 2-12-2014 rejecting the application filed under Order 18, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, they have filed this writ petition. 2. Respondent 1 herein has filed a suit seeking for partition and separate possession and also declaration declaring that the sale deed dated 28-3-2003 executed by the first defendant in favour of the 2nd and 3rd defendants as null and void. The contesting deceased first defendant-Sanjeevappa had filed written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of parties, the Trial Court has framed necessary issues. Parties went for trial. After conclusion of the trial, the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, plaintiff filed an application seeking for amendment of the plaint. Since the said amendment was unopposed, the Trial Court allowed the application. After the amendment of the plaint, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 and examined two more witnesses. In the meanwhile, the first defendant died. His legal representatives were brought on record. They are the petitioners before this Court. Though they have cross-examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and examined some more witnesses in their favour, they state that they have not cross-examined the three witnesses. After conclusion of the trial, the matter has been posted for arguments. At that stage, an application under Order 18, Rule 17 of CPC has been filed seeking for reopening of the cases of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and permit them to cross-examination. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the orders impugned and other relevant records. 4. The records clearly disclose that the plaintiff has filed a suit seeking for partition and separate possession and also for declaration in the year 2000. After trial, the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, the first defendant died and his LRs. were brought on record in the year 2011. After the amendment of the plaint, the plaintiff examined herself in the year 2012 and the matter was posted for cross-examination of the plaintiff. However, the defendants have not cross-examined the plaintiff. They examined some more witnesses. At that stage, the first defendant died and his LRs. were brought on record in the year 2011. After the amendment of the plaint, the plaintiff examined herself in the year 2012 and the matter was posted for cross-examination of the plaintiff. However, the defendants have not cross-examined the plaintiff. They examined some more witnesses. After conclusion of the evidence, the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, the present application has been filed by the defendants 1(a) to 1(d) for reopening of the case of the plaintiff and permit them to cross-examine P.Ws. 1 and 2. The Trial Court taking note of the fact that the suit has been filed in the year 2000 seeking for partition and separate possession and the father of petitioners 2 to 4 before this Court has already been cross-examined, posted the matter for arguments. Subsequently, in view of the amendment of the plaint, it was recalled and once again examined. However, defendants have not cross-examined the plaintiff. When the matter was posted for arguments, the present application has been filed. Taking into consideration all these facts, the Trial Court rejected the application. 5. I find there is no infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application. For expeditious disposal of the suit, Code of Civil Procedure was amended in 2002. However, some of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are being misused for dragging the matter. I find no infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.