On going through Annexure-6 of the case, it is disturbing to note that though the suit was instituted as early as 2012; the case could not be disposed of even in 2017, which, according to the petitioners, has been occasioned by the dilatory tactics adopted by the plaintiff. On the averments made by the petitioners in their revision petition, I cannot but conclude that the plaintiff had been responsible for the delay in the disposal of the suit. The reason for seeking reopening of evidence of the plaintiff to permit the petitioners to cross-examine his (the plaintiff’s) witnesses appears to be sound. The learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the application by firmly fixing a date and making it clear to the petitioners that no further time would be granted to them thereafter. Though the application was filed at the belated stage, yet considering the conduct of the plaintiff, I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioners should not be made a victim of the delaying tactics adopted by the plaintiff-respondent. In this view of the matter, it is obvious that the learned Single Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law in rejecting the application of the petitioners for reopening of the evidence of the plaintiff for crossexamination.
