ORDER : 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 16.06.2016 on I.A. No. 22 filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC by the petitioner-defendant in O.S. No. 1712/2007 on the file of the Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, dismissing with cost. 2. Heard Sri. G.S. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. The respondent-plaintiff has filed the instant suit for declaration, recovery of possession and damages. Plaintiff’s GPA holder was examined and evidence of plaintiff’s side was closed on 12.9.2012. Thereafter, defendant started seeking adjournments by filing IAs. one after the other. I.A. No. 5 was filed under Order 17 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC seeking adjournment of the matter for one month on the ground that his Senior Counsel’s mother was unwell. Then, he filed I.A. No. 9 under the very same provision seeking adjournment on the ground that his Senior Advocate was not keeping well. Thereafter, I.A. No. 10 was filed again seeking adjournment for one month on the ground that his Senior Counsel was out of Station. Then, I.A. No. 11 was filed on the ground that he was unable to get certified copies of ‘P’ Series document. Again fifth application i.e., I.A. No. 12 was filed on the ground that his Counsel was out of Station. I.A. No. 13 was filed for marriage ceremony of his Senior Counsel’s relative. I.A. No. 14 was filed for want of certified copies etc. Again, I.A. No. 15 was filed to recall PW-1 for cross-examination by contending that on the previous occasion his Senior Counsel was engaged in some other Court. Vide order dated 27.05.2013, the said I.A. was allowed by imposing costs of Rs.800/-. Even then, without cross -examining the witnesses, the defendant continued by filing further I.A. Nos. 16, 17, 19, 20 & 21. PW-1 is a Senior Citizen aged about 75 years. Even then, one more opportunity was given to him by adjourning the matter to 03.10.2015. On that day, the witness was present, defendant and her counsel did not turn up. Trial Court posted the suit for defendant’s evidence and adjourned. Thereafter, on 22.02.2016, the impugned application was filed contending that though counsel had requested for further cross-examination but the Court rejected the prayer and took further cross-examination as ‘nil’. 4. On that day, the witness was present, defendant and her counsel did not turn up. Trial Court posted the suit for defendant’s evidence and adjourned. Thereafter, on 22.02.2016, the impugned application was filed contending that though counsel had requested for further cross-examination but the Court rejected the prayer and took further cross-examination as ‘nil’. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases reported in 2011 AIR SCW 2296 (K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy) and AIR 2013 SC 1849 : 2013 AIR SCW 1564 (Bagai Construction through its proprietor Lalit Bagai v. Gupta Building Material Store), the Trial Court has dismissed the application with costs. 5. Assailing the correctness of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will be prejudiced if he is not permitted to cross examine the plaintiff. He prays that one more opportunity may be given to cross examine PW-1 even by imposing costs. 6. The impugned order is a narration of classic case of abuse of process of law. Trial Court has rejected the said application by narrating in detail the conduct of petitioner- defendant. Hence, there is no error in the order passed by the Trial Court. 7. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.