JUDGMENT : Z.A. Haq, J. Heard Shri B.N. Mohta, advocate for the applicant, Shri N.R. Tekade, advocate for non-applicants 1 and 2 and Shri N.S. Khubalkar, A.P.P. for non-applicant No. 3. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The non-applicants 1 and 2 have filed proceedings under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In these proceedings, the applicant filed his reply and the matter proceeded. The examination-in-chief of non-applicant No. 1 is over and she is to be cross-examined by the applicant. At this stage, the applicant filed additional reply to bring on record several facts which according to the applicant are necessary for proper adjudication of the issues involved in the matter. The Family Court, by the impugned order, has rejected the application filed by the applicant seeking permission to place on the record the additional reply. 4. Shri Mohta, learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the Family Court has committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the applicant on the ground that there is no procedure which permits any party to file additional reply in continuation of earlier reply, in proceedings under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In my view, the application is not required to be considered because of the facts of the present case. The learned trial Judge has recorded that the applicant was aware of the facts which are pleaded in the additional reply, since 2010 and the applicant has neither been able to show why he could not bring on the record the facts earlier nor there is any explanation for the inordinate delay in bringing the facts on the record. 5. With the assistance of the learned advocate for the applicant, I have examined the additional reply which the applicant is seeking to file on the record. There is nothing in the additional reply on the basis of which it can be said that the applicant was prevented him bringing the facts on the record earlier. 6. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The application is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) to be paid by the applicant to the non-applicants 1 and 2 within four weeks. 6. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The application is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) to be paid by the applicant to the non-applicants 1 and 2 within four weeks. If the amount of costs is not paid within stipulated time, the learned trial Judge shall pass appropriate orders against the applicant considering it to be non-compliance of the order passed by this Court. At this stage, Shri Mohta, learned advocate has requested that the time to dispose of the proceedings may be extended by further period of four months as the applicant will not be able to attend the proceedings because of ensuing examinations. In my view, the request made on behalf of the applicant cannot be considered by this Court directly and it will be open for the applicant to make appropriate request before the learned trial Judge. If the request is made, the learned trial Judge may consider it on the basis of the facts placed on the record.