CRP 166/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Perused the office note dated 16.9.2011. It appears that while the A/D cards in respect of the notices issued to the resp ondent Nos. 1 and 3 have been received back, neither the A/D cards nor the unser ved notices issued to the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 have returned despite expiry o f 30 days from the date of issuance of such notices by registered post with A/D. It appears that such notices were issued on 3.6.2011. Since more than 30 days ha ve elapsed from the date of issuance of such notices, the notices are deemed to be served on the respondent Nos. 2 and 4. None appears for the said respondents and as such the present revision will proceed ex parte against the respondent No s. 2 and 4. Heard Mr. Kotoky, learned counsel for the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in Ti tle Suit No. 34/2010, pending in the court of the learned Munsiff, No. 1, Mongol doi. The petitioner by the present petition has challenged the orders dated 5.2.2011 and 22.3.2011 passed by the learned Munsiff, No. 1, Mongoldoi whereby and whereu nder the petitioner has been refused time to file the list of witnesses. It appears from the materials made available in the revision petition that the p resent petitioner on 15.2.2011 filed an application seeking time to file the lis t of witnesses and also for production of documents when the suit was fixed for that purpose. The learned court below, however, vide order dated 15.2.2011 while allowing the petitioner time to file the documents on 22.3.2011 did not conside r the prayer made by the petitioner seeking time to file the list of witnesses a nd has observed that in view of Order 16 Rule 1 of the CPC the petitioner shall examine himself only during trial. The petitioner thereafter filed another application on 22.3.2011 praying for acc eptance of the list of witnesses. The said application was rejected vide order d ated 22.3.2011 on the ground that such prayer was not allowed vide order dated 1 5.2.2011. Perusal of the application dated 15.2.2011 reveals that the petitioner has cited reasons for not filing the list of witnesses on that day, which, however, was n ot considered by the learned court below while allowing the prayer to grant time for production of documents. Since the learned court below has accepted the rea sons for not filing the documents on the date fixed i.e. 15.2.2011, it ought to have allowed the prayer for filing the list of witnesses because the ground take n for not filing the list of witnesses is the same i.e. wrong recording of the d ate. In view of the above the impugned orders dated 15.2.2011 and 22.3.2011 passed by the learned court below are set aside. The list of witnesses which have been su bmitted by the petitioner on 22.3.2011 shall be accepted. The learned court below shall, thereafter, proceed with the suit in accordance w ith law. The revision petition stands disposed of.