CRP 90/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B D AGARWAL This revision application is being disposed of at the order stage itself with th e consent of the learned counsel for both the sides. Heard Mr. PK Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. J Hazarika, learned counsel for the sole respondent. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 01.02.201 1 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Tinsukia in Title Suit No.35 of 2005 where by the Court has rejected the petition of the plaintiff to produce PW-4 for cros s-examination on the next date. The adjournment was sought for on the ground that the pla intiff could not contact the witness as he was out of station. However, the lear ned Munsiff has taken a presumption that 25 days time was sufficient to contact the witness. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel submitted that out of five witnesses, three witnesses have already been cross examined and the evidence of one witness has already been expunged due to his death. In view of these developments in the trial of the case, I am of the view that the defendants would not suffer any prejudice if one more opportunity is given to the plaintiff to produce his witness namely PW-4 for cro ss-examination. However, this opportunity can be given only on payment of Rs.200 0/- as cost to the defendant. With the aforesaid direction, the revision petition stays di sposed of. Stay order stands vacated. The plaintiff is directed to produce his witness in the Co urt on 25.10.2011 for cross-examination of the witness and also the payment.