CRP 366/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. PJ Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. RK Bhattra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The petitioner, by the present petition has challenged t he orders dated 2nd July, 2010 and 21st July, 2010 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh in Money Suit No.29/2007. By order dated 2nd July, 2010, the learned Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh while rejecting the petition for adjournment, when the official witne ss was present for cross-examination, the suit has been fixed for argument on 21 st July, 2010, on which date, another application was filed by the present petit ioner seeking recalling the order dated 2nd July, 2010 and to give him opportuni ty to cross-examine the FSL Commissioner, which prayer has also been rejected vi de order dated 21st July, 2010. It appears from the order dated 2nd July, 2010 passed by the learned Munsiff that the application was filed by the learned counsel appea ring for the present petitioner/defendant praying for adjournment on the ground that the counsel has left for Guwahati. It is no doubt correct that when the wit ness is present for cross-examination normally the adjournment should not be gra nted, however, for good and sufficient reason and if the situation is beyond the control of a party to the proceeding, the Court may grant the adjournment. The petitioner/defendant for the reason, as noticed abov e, had to file the application seeking adjournment, as the learned counsel sudde nly left for Guwahati. That being the position, the learned Court below ought t o have given one more opportunity to the petitioner/defendant to examine the FSL Commissioner. In view of the aforesaid position, the impugned orders d ated 2nd July, 2010 and 21st July, 2010 are set aside. The learned Munsiff No.1 , Dibrugarh shall fix a date for cross-examination of the FSL Commissioner by th e petitioner/ defendant. In the event, on the date so fixed, the FSL Commission er is present for cross-examination and the petitioner/ defendant does not cross -examine the Commissioner, no further opportunity shall be granted. The defendan t/ petitioner, however, shall bear the cost for bringing the FSL Commissioner as assessed by the learned Munsiff for cross-examination, which shall be deposited by the petitioner/defendant within 3 (three) days from such assessment. That a part, the petitioner/defendant shall pay Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred) as cost to the plaintiff/opposite party, as the proceeding has been del ayed because of the petitioner. Such cost shall be deposited on the date fixed by this Court for appearance of the parties. The parties shall appear before th e learned Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh on 12th November, 2010. Payment of costs is t he condition precedent. The revision petition accordingly stands disposed of. N o cost.