PARSHURAM S.DANGE Vs. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Returnable forthwith. Mr.Dalvi waives service for Respondent No.1. Ms.Lund waives service for Respondent No.2. By consent, rule is taken up on board for final hearing at this stage.

(2.) THOUGH the conduct of the petitioners who appear to be original Defendants No.2A, 2B and 3 before the trial Court in conducting the suit cannot be fully appreciated because on number of occasions the adjournments were sought on their behalf, yet, however, on 25.11.97 when the matter was fixed for further cross examination of original defendant No.1 Shri B.U.Pereira, the advocate appearing for defendants no.2A, 2B and 3 could not appear at 11 a.m. since he was held up in this Court. None amongst defendants no. 2A, 2B and 3 are well-versed with the legal procedure and, therefore, could not proceed with further cross examination of original defendant No.1. As a result there of cross-examination of defendant no.1 was closed. It appears that on that very day an application was made on behalf of defendants no. 2A, 2B and 3 for recalling of the said order and permitting them to cross-examine the defendant no.1, but by the impugned order said application has been rejected.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the Petitioner undertakes and assures on behalf of the Petitioners that on 2nd February, 1998 the date already fixed before the trial Court, if the Petitioners are permitted to cross-examine original defendant No.1, they would do so without seeking any adjournment and in case the Petitioners fail to cross-examine original defendant no.1 on 2.2.98, the further cross-examination of defendant no.1 be closed. For the inconvenience that is caused to the defendant No.1, the learned counsel for Petitioner submits that his client would pay cost of Rs.5000/-.