13]While passing the order impugned, thereby permitting
Respondent/Plaintiff not to cross-examine witness of the
Petitioner/Defendant No.1 on the examination-in-chief in paras
mentioned therein, Court below considered evidence i.e. examination-
in-chief to the extent of the pleadings in the Written Statement. Court
below noticed absence of pleadings to the extent of evidence
mentioned in the above referred paras and proceeded to pass
impugned order. Apart from above, what can be noticed is, whether
Court below was justified in restricting cross-examination of the
Plaintiff to the extent of certain part of the evidence of the witness of
Petitioner/Defendant No.1 can be an issue which can be questioned in
appeal, if final verdict goes against the Petitioner/Defendant No.1.
Keeping such right of the Petitioner/Defendant No.1 intact of raising
such ground in appeal, if so required to be preferred, against the
adverse judgment, if any, delivered against his interest in the suit in
question, in my opinion, in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, at
this stage of the proceedings, no case for interference is made out.
This Court is sensitive to the fact that provisions of Order XVIII Rule 4
contemplate speedy disposal of the trial.
