1. Case taken up.

2. This petition, with a claim for a decree for placement charge, has been contested by Respondent with a compliant of non compliance of MOU with regard to area of  operation, agreed in between by Petitioner, and it was repeatedly  complained, by way of e-mails and was with no reply. Hence, the counter claim is there for having the money returned, which were paid for the first quarter at the time of entering MOU in between, as damages and compensation, for non compliance of the agreement by Petitioner itself.

3. Both side were to prove their contention made in their pleading and for exhausting this burden of prove and onus to prove liability, the evidence, by way of affidavit of both side have been filed. But, none of the witness had been cross examined by other side. The testimony in Examination in Chief is only on record and unless the facts pleaded, are being put to the witness on the anvil of cross examination, the testimony will not be acceptable as piece of evidence. The very dispute with regard to facts regarding of area of operation, given in MOU is to be put to question by both side to other side's witness for appreciating this fact that what was the area of operation agreed in between. The other side's fact with regard to mapping of placement in the area of Nandedh, which is being disputed, is also to be put to other side for its stand on above mapping report.

4. Hence, for just and equitable adjudication, there is need of the witnesses to be got cross-examined by Learned Counsels for both side as against witnesses of other side.

5. Hence, the matter is being directed to be listed before Court of Registrar on 17.12.2026 for getting the cross-examination completed.