CRP 426/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H.N.SARMA Heard Mr D Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner. The subject matter of challenge in the revision petition is the order d ated 10.8.2010 passed by the learned Munsiff, Bongaigaon in Title Suit No.39/2 008 thereby rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for adjournment of the suit a nd expunging the evidence of the DW’s 1. The petitioner is the defendant No.2 in the aforesaid Title Suit No.39/2008. T he petitioner is an Assistant Sub Inspector in the Assam Police Radio Organizat ion and presently is serving under the Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar and p osted at Gossaigaon. The suit was fixed on 10.8.2010 for cross-examination of the defendants. An app lication for adjournment was filed by the learned Advocate of the petitioner s tating that the employer of the petitioner did not grant casual leave before 15 th August due to law and order situation and as a result, the petitioner could n ot appear along with other DWs to submit affidavit evidence and accordingly a pr ayer for adjournment of the suit was made by the learned counsel for the petitio ner. The learned trial court vide impugned order dated 10.8.2010 rejected the pr ayer of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had already availed thr ee adjournments i.e. on 1.7.2010, 13.7.2010 and 30.7.2010 and accordingly relyin g on the provisions of Order 17 Rule 1(1) CPC, rejected the prayer for adjournm ent and closed the evidence of defendants. The petitioner has also annexed a co py of the certificate issued by the Inspector, APRO, Kokrarjhar stating that the employee who was on duty at Gossaigaon Sub Division was not granted any leave f rom 8.8.2010 to 11.8.2010 due to visit of VVIP at Gossaigaon and rejected the pr ayer for leave. However, the impugned order does not disclose that the learned M unsiff has considered the ground for failure to attend the court by the petition er on the date fixed as disclosed in the adjournment petition. The learned Muns iff rejected the prayer for adjournment on the ground that the petitioner had al ready availed three adjournments but failed to consider the ground projected in the adjournment petition. In view of the above facts and circumstances , this revision petition is dispose d of with direction to the learned Munsiff, Bongaigaon to pass a fresh order con sidering the ground as projected by the petitioner in the adjournment petition i.e. not allowing any leave by the superior of the petitioner due to visit of V VIP which is not in his hand and in the light of the decision rendered by the A pex Court in the case of -1) Top Line Shoes vs. Corporation Bank reported in (2 002) 6 SCC 33 and 2) Salem’s Advocates Bar Association vs. U.O.I. reported in (2 005) 6 SCC 344. Till passing such an order, the impugned order shall not be given effect to by the learned trial court. The revision petition is disposed of with the above direction and observations.