After hearing counsel for the petitioner and considering the grounds on which the cross-examination has been recorded as “nil opportunity given”, it appears that the order refusing the application for recalling defendant No.4 for cross-examination is a well reasoned order but since it is claimed that the cross-examination could not be conducted for absence of Advocate, without expression of any opinion regarding the validity of said plea, in the interest of justice, defendant- respondent No.4 can be recalled for cross-examination subject to payment of a reasonable cost. It can also not be ignored that though the plaintiff- petitioner has filed a suit for damages for harassment, at the same time he has also been able to harass respondent No.4 w.e.f. year 2005 i.e. for a period of 4 years by filing a suit against him. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, and the health conditions of defendant- respondent No.4, it is ordered that the plaintiff-petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs.20000/- in the trial Court within a period of one week in order to enable the defendantrespondent No.4 to meet the expenses of traveling all the way from Rohtak to Kaithal. In case the said amount is deposited, the trial Court will fix a
