delay and latches because it has been filed on 17.12.2009 assailing the order of the trial Court dated 31.8.2007. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has further pointed out that the petitioners have not disclosed that they had already cross-examined the plaintiff on 21.8.2007, which runs into 5 pages and then on 31.8.2007, which is placed on record as Annexure RW1/2 with application No.3190-CII2010. It is also submitted that the litigation is being looked after by Sanjeev Goyal (petitioner No.2), who was present at Ludhiana. In this regard, a substantial averment has been made in the para No.6 of the reply, which is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners. It is, thus, submitted that defendants have tried their level best since long to delay the proceedings as possible as they can do on one pretext or the other and are not interested in cross-examination. The plaintiff, who has appeared twice in the witness box for the purpose of cross-examination, in fact, has been cross-examined to large extent. It is also submitted that arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners that they could not challenge the impugned order well within time only because of the reason that application for appointment of Arbitrator was pending before the Civil Court and was dismissed only on 1.4.2009 and the Revision thereof was dismissed by this Court on 4.12.2009 is misconceived.
