CRP 55/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. B.C. Das, Senior Advoc ate appearing for Opposite Party No.1 and Mr. R.K. Goswami, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.3,4 and 5. As is revealed by the Office note dated 28.05.2009, the service of notice of the instant proceeding on the opposite party No.2 is complete. However, it has not arranged for its representation. The impugned order is one dated 12.11.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bo ngaigaon in Title Suit No.6/2001 closing the evidence of the petitioner-plaintif fs for their failure to produce witnesses on more than one occasion. The petiti oners had instituted the aforementioned suit against the opposite party praying for a decree, inter alia for a declaration and injunction. For the instant purpose details of the pleaded stands of the parties are not cal led for. Suffice it to mention that the opposite party on receiving the summons of the suit entered appearance and the opposite party No.1 filed his written st atement. Issues were framed and the suit was eventually fixed for recording of the evidence of the plaintiffs-petitioners on 22.08.2008. As adjournment was so ught for on behalf of the plaintiffs-petitioners and the hearing was shifted to 25.09.2008. On that date, as well the plaintiffs-petitioners prayed for time. On the deferred date, i.e. on 12.11.2008 as well as they reiterated their prayer for adjournment, the impugned order was passed. Mr. Ahmed has argued that as admittedly the petitioners-plaintiffs had before th e passing of the impugned order taken adjournment of the hearing on only two dat es, the observation made by the learned trial Court that they had taken three ad journments is factually incorrect rendering the impugned order untenable in law. The learned Senior counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 without admitting to this factual aspect, however has submitted without entering into this controversy th at this petition be disposed of by granting one opportunity to the petitioners-p laintiffs to examine their witnesses if deemed fit and proper. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the r easons recorded in the impugned order, this Court considers the submissions made on behalf of the opposite party No.1 to be reasonable. In this view of the mat ter the impugned order is interfered with. The petitioners-plaintiffs are grant ed one more opportunity of examining their witnesses and adducing other evidence , if so advised in the suit. The parties would appear before the learned trial Court on 17.08.2011 to take fu rther order(s). It is made clear that the petitioners-plaintiffs would be grant ed only one opportunity of adducing evidence as above failing which it would be open for the learned Court to pass appropriate order(s) as considered appropriat e. The petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.