CRP 378/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI Heard Mr. H.K. Deka, learned Senior counsel for the plaintiffs/ petitioners, and Mr. G.N. Kakati, learned counsel for the defendant/opposite party. After recording evidence in Title Suit No.278/2003, when the learned Munsiff No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati, found that some additional issues were required to be frame d, it framed additional issues and on framing additional issues, the plaintiffs filed a petition seeking to adduce further evidence. The prayer having been allo wed, the plaintiffs adduced evidence, whereupon the defendants examined two witn esses by filing their evidence on one affidavit, the two witnesses being defenda nt Nos 5 and 6; but, on subsequent date, DW 5 did not appear in the suit and his cross-examination could not take place. Similarly, the defendants’ witness No.6 , namely, Sri Surendra Nath Borah, also did not appear and he could not, therefo re, be cross-examined. When the Suit was pending, on 11/8/2010, for cross-examination of the defendants ’ witnesses, the defendants filed a petition stating to the effect inter alia, t hat the defendants witness No.5 could not be contacted by the defendants despite best efforts and that as so far defendants witness No.6 is concerned, he had be en suffering from severe diabetes with some complication, he had been undergoing treatment and had accordingly been advised to take rest for two months by docto rs w.e.f 10/8/2010. A medical certificate was also submitted in support of the d efendants’ plea that the said witness was sick. The defendants accordingly sough t for adjournment of the hearing but the learned trial Court has rejected the pr ayer by its order, dated 11/08/2010, on the ground that earlier also, the defend ants had sought for adjournment on same ground and the case cannot be allowed to proceed indefinitely and that repeated adjournments would cause prejudice to th e plaintiffs. While considering the present revision, it needs to be noted that the learned tr ial Court pointed out in the impugned order that adjournment had been sought for on the same ground in the past. The fact of the matter remains that the learned trial Court did not come to a finding that the defendants’ witness No.6 was not so sick that he could have been brought to the Court or that the defendants’ wi tness No.6 was feigning sickness and/or there is latches on the part of the defe ndants in contacting their witness No.5. Without such a finding, the refusal to grant adjournment was illegal inasmuch as every petition for adjournment has to be decided on its own merit. Considering the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, the impug ned order, dated 11/8/2010, is hereby set aside with a direction to the parties of the Suit to appear, in the Suit on 30/11/2010, in the learned trial Court for further necessary orders. On appearance of the parties or their counsel, the le arned trial Court shall fix a firm date for further evidence of the defendants a nd then dispose of the Suit expeditiously and, preferably, within a period of ne xt 3 (three) months. With the above observations and directions, this revision shall stand disposed o f. No order as to costs. Sent forthwith a copy of this order to the learned Munsiff No.3, Kamrup, Guwahat i. Bring the above direction to the notice of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial).