CRP 392/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr KR Surana, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr SP Roy, le arned counsel for the respondents. As agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in Title Suit No.436/2006 (renum bered as TS No.8/2003) presently pending in the court of learned Munsiff No.3, K amrup, by the present petition have challenged the order dated 31st May 2010 pas sed by the learned court below refusing to grant further adjournment and dischar ging the defendants’ witness, who were present in that court, and thereby disall owing the plaintiffs to cross-examine the said witness. By the said order though the date of argument was fixed on 16th June 2010, however, the same could not b e done. It would appear from the order dated 31st May 2010 that the prayer for a djournment on that day was made on the ground that a new set of advocates have b een engaged who were not ready to cross-examine the defendants’ witness. In view of the above, I am of the view that at least one more chance is required to be given to the petitioners to cross-examine the defendant’s witness . No further chance however be given, in the event the plaintiffs fail to cross- examine the witness to be produced by the defendant for that purpose. The defend ant shall, on the next date fixed i.e. on 8th October 2010, produce their witnes s for cross-examination by the petitioners. Since the plaintiffs are taking adjournment since the month of July 2007 on one pretext or other, they shall pay Rs.7,500/-(Rupees seven thousand and fi ve hundred) only to the defendants as cost, which shall be deposited on the next date fixed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned court below o n 8th October 2010. The deposit of the cost is condition precedent, failing whic h the plaintiffs shall not be allowed to cross-examine the defendants’ witness a nd evidence will be closed and argument will be heard. This revision petition is disposed of, as indicated above, with costs.