ORDER : Alok Sharma, J. Under challenge is the order dated 21-8-2017 whereby petitioner defendant's (hereinafter 'the defendant') application for recall of the order dated 31-3-2017 closing the right to cross examine the witnesses Pw.1, 2 and 3 was dismissed. 2. Mr. Sudesh Bansal, counsel for the defendant submitted that on 31-3-2017 counsel for the defendant No. 4 before the trial court was unwell and had gone to visit his Doctor. Yet the right of the defendant to cross examine Pw.1, 2, and 3 was closed. The factum of the illness of the counsel was put forth before the trial court along with the application for recall of the order dated 31-3-2017, supported by counsel's affidavit and Doctor's prescription, yet the application has been dismissed primarily on the ground that the suit pertains to 2003, which could brook no further delay in its adjudication. Mr. Sudesh Bansal submitted that in the circumstances in the interest of justice, the trial court ought to have recalled the order dated 31-3-2017 and allowed one opportunity to defendant to cross examine the witnesses Pw.1, 2 and 3. 3. Mr. G.P. Sharma, appearing for the respondent-plaintiff (hereafter 'the plaintiff') submitted that the impugned order dated 21-8-2017 is a well considered one and the discretion of the trial court has been rightly exercised with reference to the conduct of the defendant through out the trial focused on delays in the suit adjudication. He submitted that the Rajasthan High Court has issued general directions on the administrative side requiring all trial courts to decide all old suits over ten years or more prior to 31-12-2017. Mr. G.P. Sharma has however submitted that in view of the fact that an affidavit was filed by an Advocate regarding his illness along with a copy of prescription in support of the application for recall of the order dated 31-3-2017, he would not oppose the recall of the order dated 31-3-2017 or challenge to the impugned order dated 21-8- 2017 subject to condition that in all event the cross examination of Pw.1, 2 and 3 be completed on the next date fixed before the trial court which is 13-10-2017. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. The fair submission of Mr. G.P. Sharma, counsel for the plaintiff eschews this court's need to address the impugned orders dated 21-8-2017 as also 31-3-2017 on merits. 6. In view of Mr. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. The fair submission of Mr. G.P. Sharma, counsel for the plaintiff eschews this court's need to address the impugned orders dated 21-8-2017 as also 31-3-2017 on merits. 6. In view of Mr. G.P. Sharma's lack of opposition to the petition which translates to a consent to set aside the impugned orders dated 31-3-2017 and 21-8-2017, they are set aside subject to condition that counsel for the defendant shall cross examine the witnesses Pw.1, 2 and 3 on 13-10-2017, the next date in the suit commencing 2.00 PM. The trial court is directed to allow the cross examination of Pw.1, 2 and 3 as aforesaid, and if necessary for paucity of time, the cross examination be continued the following working day and in all eventuality be then concluded. 7. In absence of certified copy of this order by tomorrow, copy of the order downloaded from the Rajasthan High Court website will suffice. Counsel for the parties would also be free to file affidavit to bring the substance of this order to the notice of the trial court. 8. It is also directed that the underlying suit pertaining to the year 2003, be disposed of strictly in terms of the general directions of the Rajasthan High Court with regard to disposal of old matters. 9. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.