JUDGMENT 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the plaintiff and the defendant in O.S. No.113 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi (for short, the civil Court ). The plaintiff is the petitioner in W.P. No.101830 of 2020 & W.P. Nos.138947-138948 of 2020, and the defendant is the petitioner in W.P. No.115943/2019 & W.P. No.116023/2019. 2. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Trial Court for the reasons of convenience. 3. The Civil Court by its order dated 22.11.2019 has rejected the plaintiffs three applications - I.A. Nos.11 to 13 . The civil Court by its order dated 18.10.2019 has also rejected the defendants two applications - I.A. Nos.3 and 4 . The plaintiff has filed his aforesaid three applications for re-opening of the suit, which is now posted for arguments, for leave to examine another witness as P.W.2, and for leave to produce and mark additional documents. The defendant is aggrieved because his applications for re-opening of the case and to cross-examine P.W.1 are rejected. 4. The plaintiff, admittedly, has filed the suit in OS No.113/2007 for possession asserting that the defendant is in possession of a portion of its property as a tenant. The plaintiff has examined its Manager, who was in office as of the year 2011, as P.W.1. The defendant neither cross-examined this witness nor tendered his own evidence. The suit is decreed ex parte on 28.10.2011. However, in the appeal filed by the defendant in R.A. No.44 of 2012, the appellate Court, while considering the defendants applications filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC, has set aside the ex parte order and remanded the suit for fresh consideration. The appellate Court has opined that the defendant shall be entitled to reopen the suit and contest the suit on merits. 5. The plaintiff has now filed the applications as aforesaid because the witness, who is examined as P.W.1, is no longer in service and this witness cannot be tendered for cross-examination. The defendant has filed the application because P.W.1 is not cross-examined. The Appellate Courts order in R.A. No.44 of 2012 is to facilitate the decision on merits. 5. The plaintiff has now filed the applications as aforesaid because the witness, who is examined as P.W.1, is no longer in service and this witness cannot be tendered for cross-examination. The defendant has filed the application because P.W.1 is not cross-examined. The Appellate Courts order in R.A. No.44 of 2012 is to facilitate the decision on merits. Therefore, it would not be reasonable to conclude either that the remand is limited only to enable the defendant to lead his evidence on his behalf without cross examining P.W.1 or that the plaintiff should, even if P.W.1 has retired from service, should be tendered for cross-examination. The Civil Court has rejected the respective applications because the proceedings are pending for a long and the parties have not been diligent. The Civil Court, with the suit being restored for decision on merits, should have extended opportunity to both the parties to lead respective evidence in the light of the changed circumstances to facilitate decision on merits. The Civil Courts impugned orders are an improper exercise of jurisdiction. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it would be appropriate to quash the impugned orders and allow the applications filed by both the plaintiff and the defendant on terms. As such, the following order: (i) The impugned orders dated 18.10.2019 and 22.11.2019 in O.S. No.113 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi are quashed. (ii) The plaintiffs applications viz., I.A. Nos.11 to 13 as well as the defendants applications viz ., I.A. Nos.3 and 4 are allowed. (iii) The plaintiff shall be entitled to examine its present Manager as of date as P.W.2 and the defendant shall be entitled to cross-examine apart from leading his own evidence. (iv) Either the plaintiff or the defendant shall make application if necessary, before the Civil Court for advancing the case to 9th of March 2020, and the Civil Court shall conduct the trial on day-to-day basis. (v) If the plaintiff or the defendant ask for unnecessary adjournment, if at all such adjournment could be granted, it shall be granted on costs of Rs.500/- per day. (vi) Writ petitions are allowed accordingly.