CRP 286/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Dr. Dasgupta, lea rned counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the Title Suit pending in the court of t he learned Munsiff No. 1 at Golaghat, by the present petition, has challenged th e order dated 6.5.2011 whereby and whereunder, while rejecting the prayer made b y the petitioner seeking adjournment on the ground of sudden illness of the lear ned counsel, the examination of the witnesses on the plaintiff’s side was closed and the next date was fixed for examination of the witnesses of the defendants’ side. It appears from the materials made available as well as the impugned order dated 6.5.2011 that the plaintiff himself was present before the court with one witne ss on 6.5.2011, on which date an application, however, was filed praying for adj ournment due to sudden illness of the learned counsel. The said prayer was rejec ted vide order dated 6.5.2011 on the ground that the said date was fixed as last date for examination of the plaintiff’s witness. The examination of plaintiff’s witness thus was closed and 31.5.2011 was the date fixed for examination of the defendants’ witnesses. As noticed above, on 6.5.2011 the plaintiff himself as well as his witness was p resent. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff has already examined three witnesses who were duly cross examined and the last witness PW 4 was present on that day for examination. The learned court below also did not disbelieve the av erments made in the application seeking adjournment for the sudden illness of th e plaintiff’s Advocate and therefore was unable to examine the witness present. The learned court below therefore ought to have granted a further opportunity to the plaintiff to examine the said witness as he cannot be penalized for the sud den illness of the learned counsel when he was present with the witness. The cou rt also could have asked the plaintiff to examine his witness which was not done by the learned court below as it is not always necessary that the party must be represented by a lawyer. That being the position, in my considered opinion a further opportunity is requi red to be given to the petitioner/plaintiff to examine PW 4. The learned court below therefore, is directed to fix date for examination of th e PW 4. In the event because of the default on the part of the petitioner the sa id witness for any reasons cannot be examined no further opportunity shall be gi ven. The parties are directed to appear before the learned court below on 18.1.2012 f or taking necessary orders from the learned Munsiff, No. 1, Golaghat who shall o n that day fix the date for examination of the PW 4. The revision petition is accordingly allowed as indicated above. No cost.