ORDER : Petitioners are defendants 2 and 6 in O.S.No.3293/2007 on the file of the 5th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30102014 rejecting I.A.Nos.28 and 29, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions. 2. The respondent herein filed a suit seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the suit schedule property. The defendants 2 and 6 entered appearance and filed written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed necessary issues. On the basis of the issues framed, the parties went for trial. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 on 9-8-2011, thereafter the case was posted for his cross-examination. On 20-09-2011, P.W.1 was cross-examined in part. The case was posted on 15-11-2011. On that day, P.W.1 was absent. In view of that, the cross examination of P.W.1 was closed and D.W.1 was examined on 1-8-2012. On 29-08-2012, the case was posted for cross-examination of D.W.1. In the meantime, the application was filed for recalling the evidence of P.W.1 for further cross-examination. On various dates, the parties were not present and due to many reasons, the matter was being adjourned. On 8-9-2014, the case was posted for further cross-examination of P.W.1 and on that day, there was no representation for defendants 2 and 6. In view of that, further cross-examination of P.W.1 was recorded as NIL; P.W.1 was discharged and plaintiff’s evidence was closed. The case was posted for cross-examination of D.W.1 on 15-09-2014. On that day, D.W.1 was absent. Since, D.W.1 was not available for cross-examination, the evidence of D.W.1 discarded. Thereafter, the defendants 2 and 6 filed applications I.A.Nos.28 and 29 for recalling P.W.1 for further cross-examination and also for cross-examination of D.W.1. The plaintiff filed objections to the said applications contending that though opportunity was given to defendants 2 and 6, they have not availed the said opportunity. Apart from that, an application for reopening the evidence of P.W.1 has not been filed. Hence, sought for dismissal of those two applications. 3. The plaintiff filed objections to the said applications contending that though opportunity was given to defendants 2 and 6, they have not availed the said opportunity. Apart from that, an application for reopening the evidence of P.W.1 has not been filed. Hence, sought for dismissal of those two applications. 3. The Trial Court after considering the matter in detail, taking note of the adjournments taken in the matter, and further taking into consideration the fact that P.W.1 was cross-examined at length and the evidence runs into more than 13 pages, held that the defendants 2 and 6 only with an intention to dodge the proceedings, have filed these two applications. Accordingly, rejected both the applications, by its order impugned in these writ petitions. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petitions have been filed by defendants 2 and 6. 4. Sri. Giridhar H., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the order passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law. Though these defendants were available on various dates to cross-examine P.W.1, either P.W.1 was absent or for paucity of time, they could not complete the cross-examination of P.W.1. Sometimes, the evidence was conducted only for 5 to 10 minutes. There was no lapse on the part of the petitioners and they were available for cross-examination. In fact the court has imposed cost on the plaintiff for not tendering himself for cross-examination. Further, cost was also imposed on the defendants for not cross-examining P.W.1. and for not tendering himself for cross-examination. If an opportunity is given to further cross-examine P.W.1. and for cross-examination of D.W.1 on the given date, he would cross-examine P.W.1 and also D.W.1 will be made available for cross-examination without giving any scope of further adjournment. Hence, sought for allowing the writ petitions. 5. On the other hand, Sri. M.L. Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed for giving one more opportunity and contended that the suit has been filed in the year 2007. P.W.1 was available for cross-examination from the year 2013. Even after completion of 3 years, evidence has not been completed. The application for reopening of evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 has not been filed. In the absence of the same, permission cannot be granted to invoke Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC for cross-examining P.W.1 as well as D.W.1 and sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. 6. Even after completion of 3 years, evidence has not been completed. The application for reopening of evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 has not been filed. In the absence of the same, permission cannot be granted to invoke Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC for cross-examining P.W.1 as well as D.W.1 and sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. 6. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and other relevant records. 7. The records clearly disclose that the matter was being adjourned for further cross examination of P.W.1 and D.W.1. Initially P.W.1 was examined on 9-8-2011, thereafter the case was posted for his cross-examination. However, P.W.1 was absent, hence the evidence of P.W.1 was closed. Once again, it was reopened on payment of cost. The matter was adjourned for one reason or the other. Both the plaintiff and defendants have contributed for dragging on the matter. 8. On 8-9-2014, when the case was posted for cross-examination of P.W.1, learned counsel appearing for the defendants was held up in another Court and after completing the case in that court hall, when he rushed to the court where the case was posted, the court had closed the evidence of P.W.1 and taken cross-examination of D.W.1. Immediately, it was brought to the notice of the Court. However, the court did not oblige. Further, the marriage of D.W.1 was celebrated on 10-9-2014 at Mangalore and hence he could not be present before the Court on 15-9-2014 for cross-examination. In view of that, the evidence of D.W.1 was discarded. Immediately thereafter, the applications I.A.Nos.28 and 29 were filed under Order 18 Rule 17 and read with Section 151 of CPC for recalling the evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 for further cross-examination. The Trial Court only on the ground that P.W.1 has already been cross-examined at length and the evidence runs into more than 13 pages, held that cross-examination of P.W.1 is not required. Insofar as cross-examination of D.W.1 is concerned, solely on the ground that an application for reopening the case of P.W.1 has not been filed, the Trial Court rejected the said application. The order passed by the Trial Court is not sustainable. An opportunity ought to have been given to D.W.1 to tender himself for cross-examination and permit the defendants to further cross-examine P.W.1. The order passed by the Trial Court is not sustainable. An opportunity ought to have been given to D.W.1 to tender himself for cross-examination and permit the defendants to further cross-examine P.W.1. The reasons assigned for non-appearance is bonafide, that D.W.1 got married on 10-9-2014 and hence could not be present in the court on 15-9-2014. The Trial Court has not taken into consideration the reasons assigned by the defendants in proper perspective. Hence, I am of the view that one more opportunity should be given to D.W.1 to cross-examine P.W.1 and to tender himself for cross-examination. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the case is posted on 6-2-2015 and on that day, he will keep his party present in the court and the advocate appearing for the respondent also submits that he will also keep his party present before the Court on that day for cross-examination. In view of that, P.W.1 and D.W.1 are directed to be present in the court on 6-2-2015 and on that day, D.W.1 shall further cross-examine P.W.1 and if time permits, D.W.1 shall tender himself for cross-examination on that day itself or on the date to be fixed by the Trial Court. 10. With the above observations, the writ petitions are allowed. The order dated 30-10-2014 is quashed subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/payable to the plaintiff. The Trial Court is directed to give one more opportunity to further cross-examine P.W.1 and D.W.1 on 6-2-2015 or on the date to be fixed by the Trial Court.