CRP 409/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. UPADHYAY Heard Mr. S. R. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The order I propose to pass in this case, in my considered opinion, notice to th e respondent is not essential. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.7.2011 passed by the learned Court of Munsiff at Bongaigaon in T.S. No.27 of 2010, whereby his prayer for adj ournment of the cross-examination and evidence of DW-2 and DW-3 was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on 27.6.2011, the learned tri al Court fixed the next date on 12.7.2011 for passing necessary order in the sui t noted above. On 12.7.2011, the learned Court below fixed 20.7.2011 for cross-examination of the DWs. Accordingly, on 20.7.2011, DW-1 was cross examined duly by the plaintif f’s counsel. However, a prayer was made by the petitioner/defendant for adjournm ent for cross examination of DW-2 and DW-3, since both the witnesses had gone ou t of station on holidays without informing the petitioners. In the circumstances, the petitioners could not produce the witness and accordin gly prayed for adjournment in such unusual circumstances. Learned counsel also p ointed out that he had filed a counter claim in the suit, therefore, the evidenc e of the two witnesses would be very essential for effective disposal of his cou nter claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact adjournment for cross- examination of DW-2 and DW-3 was made by the petitioner for the 1st time in such unusual circumstances. More so, since the petitioner did not have any control o ver the witnesses, who left the place without informing him. In the given circumstances, for the reasons assigned, the inability to produce t he witnesses ought to have been considered and allowed with reasonable costs, in stead of closing the evidence and expunging the evidence on affidavit submitted by Dw-2 and DW-3. The aforesaid exercise would have the potential do injustice t o the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances, I propose to dispose of this ap plication with a direction to the learned Trial Court to allow the petitioner de fendants to adduce the evidence of DW-2 and DW-3 subject to payment of cost of R s.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the impugned order expunging the evidence on affidavit submitted on behalf of the DW-2 and DW-3 is set aside and the case is remitted to the learne d trial Court to proceed ahead to dispose of the suit in accordance with law, as early as possible. With this observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of.