CRP 178/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T NK SINGH Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent withou t showing any cause. Perused the revision petition as well as the Petition No.476/09 filed by the present plaintiff/petitioner in the Court of learned Munsiff No.1, Morigaon, in connection with Title Suit No.43/07. On perusal of the Petition No. 476/09 it is clear that the prayer sought for therein is that the present petiti oner/plaintiff prayed for recalling the PW-3 for the purpose of exhibiting the K acha Sale Deed (Ext.1) and also his signature (PW-3) as attesting witness. On th e same day of filing Petition No.476/09 petitiner-plaintiff also filed another a pplication being Petition No.477/09 for allowing to produce additional witness. Vide order dated 25.05.2009, the learned Munsiff had considered and allowed the Petition No.476/09 thereby allowing to recall PW-3 who said to b e the attesting witness in the Kacha Sale Deed (Ext.1) to exhibit his signature as attesting witness in the Kacha Sale Deed (Ext.1); but the learned Munsiff did not consider Petition No.477/09 which was filed on the day of filing Petition N o.476/09. Copy of the order of learned Munsiff dated 25.05.2009 is available at page 37 of the present revision petition; and on perusal, it is clear that the l earned Magistrate, had not only allowed re-examination of PW.3 but also re-exami ned PW.3 on the very day. Thereafter, the Title Suit No.477 of 2009 had been fix ed for examination of PW on 01.07.2009. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff that the petitioner plaintiff did not cite any official witness in the Title Sui t No.477/09, therefore, it is redundant on the part of the learned Munsiff to pa ss order for issuing summon to the official witness. As no official witness was cited by the petitioner-plaintiff in the Title Suit No.43/07, petitioner-plaintiff did not take steps for issuing sum mon to the official witness. On the next date of hearing of the T.S.No.43/07, le arned Magistrate passed order dated 01.07.2009 that the plaintiff who was requir ed to call the official witness, did not take any steps and also that petitioner -plaintiff had taken three adjournments during the stage of PWs; and on the very day also i.e. 1.7.09 taken up the Petition No.477/09 which had already been fil ed and rejected on the ground that the petitioner-plaintiff had already taken th ree steps for adjournment. The petitioner also annexed copy of the day-to-day order sheet o f the Title Suit No.473/09 to the present revision petition and on perusal, it a ppears that there is no gross negligence on the part of the petitioner-plaintiff in taking steps for production of PW. In the above given case, order of the learned Munsiff dated 01.0 7.2009 is not only factually incorrect so far as the official witness is concern ed inasmuch as the petitioner-plaintiff had not cite any official witness in the T.S.No.43/07 but also too harsh to pass the order for rejection of the prayer f or production of additional witness. The rejection of Petition No.477/09 will am ount to denying the opportunity to the Plaintiff-petitioner to put up his case e ffectively. For the ends of justice opportunity should be available to the petit ioner-plaintiff to put up his case effectively. For the foregoing reasons, this court has no alternative except to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Trial Court dated 01.07.2009 . Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.07.2009 is hereby set aside. Petition er-plaintiff should be allowed to produce additional witness within one month fr om today. Considering the peculiar circumstances, this court is of conside red view that some cost is required to be imposed to the present petitioner-plai ntiff for causing delay in disposal of the above trial even though the petitione r-plaintiff is not solely responsible for it. Accordingly, a cost of Rs.2,000/- is imposed to the petitioner, which shall be paid by the petitioner-plaintiff to the respondent within a month from today and examine all additional witnesses, if necessary. Examination of additional witnesses shall be started within one mo nth from today. It is made clear that the petitioner-plaintiff shall be allowed to examine additional witnesses only after payment of the said cost of Rs.2000/- to the respondent-defendant; and that if there be any lapse or slackness on the part of the plaintiff-petitioner in producing the additional witness, the learn ed Magistrate by passing appropriate order, should not allow to examine the addi tional witnesses. With the above observation and direction, the revision petition is allowed.