CRP 11/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in Title Suit No.372/2006 (previously re gistered as Title Suit No.151/2002 while pending in the Court of learned Assista nt District Judge) pending in the Court of the learned Munsiff No.1, Karimganj, has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 15 December 2010 pass ed by the learned Munsiff rejecting the prayer for adjournment for production of plaintiff’s witness for cross-examination by the defendants/opposite parties, o n the ground that medical certificate produced in support of his illness is not satisfactory having not been issued by a Government medical practitioner which a lso does not disclose the registration number of the doctor and more than three adjournments had already been granted to the petitioners. I have heard Mr PK Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr SK M edhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that on the date fixed, that is on 15 December 2010, for production of the plaintiffs’ lone witness i.e. the plaintiff herself, who had filed the evidence-on-affidavit, fo r cross-examination by the defendants, he could not be present before the Court due to his ailment for which though an application was filed on 13 December 2010 , enclosing therewith a medical certificate, the same has been rejected on the g round that such certificate has not been issued by a Government medical practiti oner and the same does not bear registration number of the doctor, without howev er disbelieving the contention of the petitioner No.1 that he had been suffering from certain ailment. It has also been submitted that the other ground on which the prayer for adjournment was rejected by the learned Court below is that more than 3 adjournments had already been granted, though the Court, in special circ umstance, may grant more than three adjournments. Learned counsel further submit s that if one more chance is given to the petitioner No.1, he would produce hims elf for cross-examination by the defendants. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supporting the o rder dated 15 December 2010 has submitted that though the evidence-on-affidavit of the plaintiff lone witness was filed in the year 2008, the case was adjourned from time to time at the instance of the plaintiff/petitioner No.1 for his inab ility to produce himself for cross-examination by the defendants and as such, th e learned Court below has not committed any irregularity in refusing to grant th e prayer for adjournment vide order dated 15 December 2010. As noticed above, on 13 December 2010, i.e. two days before the date fix ed for production of the plaintiffs’ witness for cross-examination by the defend ants, an application was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner No.1 for adjournment on the ground of his illness. A medical certificate by the attending physician w as also enclosed with said application. The learned Munsiff has refused to rely on such medical certificate on the ground that the same has not been issued by a ny Government medical practitioner and it does not bear the registration number of the doctor. The other ground for refusing the adjournment is that the petitio ner already took more than three adjournments. Though normally no adjournment for more than three times at the hearing stage should be granted, the Court is not powerless to grant adjournment more th an that, provided the party seeking adjournment demonstrates special circumstanc es for that purpose. In the instant case, two days prior to the date fixed for t he production of the plaintiff’s witness for cross examination, an application s eeking adjournment enclosing therewith a medical certificate was filed, wherefro m it appears that the petitioner No.1 was under treatment and was advised by his attending physician to take bed rest from 12 December 2010, at least for three weeks, as he was suffering from certain ailment. One of the grounds on which the certificate was rejected is that the registration number of the doctor was not mentioned, is non-existent, as the certificate does bear the seal as well as the registration number of the doctor. The certificate issued by the doctor cannot be refused to be taken into consideration solely on the ground that he/she is no t a Government doctor, as has been done in the case at hand. That being the position, the impugned order dated 15 December 2010 passe d by the learned Munsiff No.1, Karimganj in Title Suit No.372/2006 is set aside. The learned Munsiff shall give one more chance to the petitioner No.1 to produc e himself for cross-examination by the defendants, by fixing a date for that pur pose. In the event the petitioner No.1 for any reason does not make himself avai lable for cross-examination on the date that may be fixed by learned Munsiff, no further opportunity shall be granted. Since the proceeding has been delayed at the instance of the petitioner No.1, he would pay a cost of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees th ree thousand) only to the defendants, which shall be deposited on the date fixed by this Court for appearance of the parties. The said amount shall be paid to t he respondents. The parties shall appear before the learned Court below on 24 Fe bruary 2011, when the learned Munsiff would fix a date for cross-examination of the plaintiff No.1’ witness. Payment of cost is condition precedent. The revision petition stands disposed of