IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi C.O. 1556 of 2025 Nepal Chandra Khamrai & Anr. Vs. Sukumar Pan & Ors. For the petitioners : Mr. Sukanta Das, Ms. Anulekha Bera Maiti Heard on : 23.09.2026 Judgment on : 23.09.2026 MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.: 1. The instant revisional application has been filed assailing an order no. 103 dated 14th February, 2025. By such order the Learned Trial Court rejected an adjournment prayer made on behalf of the petitioners/plaintiffs and evidence of the plaintiffs was directed to be closed. 2. The affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioners/plaintiffs goes to show that the notices were served upon the opposite parties. But none has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties. Hence the instant revisional application is taken up for consideration. 2 3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners/plaintiffs that the petitioners filed Title Suit No. 119 of 2013 which is pending before the Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ghatal, Paschim Midnapur. Subsequently the said suit was renumbered as Title Suit No. 52 of 2021. Initially after filing of the Title Suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application was disposed of. Thereafter the suit was fixed for evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs/petitioners. 4. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners/plaintiffs that the evidence of the plaintiffs was in progress. PW-1 was examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and he was discharged after examination in full. Thereafter the suit was fixed for evidence. However, the hearing of the suit was intervened by Covid-19 pandemic. Ultimately 12th December, 2024 was fixed in the suit for examination of PW-2. The petitioners/plaintiffs took adjournment on such date with medical certificate which was allowed by the Learned Trial Court with cost of Rs. 500/-. Thereafter the case was fixed on 14th February, 2025 for examination of PW-2 as well as for payment of cost awarded vide order dated 12th December, 2024. On such date also the petitioners/plaintiffs prayed for an adjournment. They also did not pay the cost awarded by order dated 12th December, 2024. Such prayer of the petitioners/plaintiffs was rejected and the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs was directed to be closed. 3 5. It transpires from the materials on record that the further proceeding of the trial in Title Suit No. 52 of 2021 was stayed by an order passed by this Court on 7th May, 2025. 6. In the faces and circumstances of the case, the prayer of the petitioners/plaintiffs was refused by the order dated 14th February, 2025. It specifically stated that the adjournment sought for by the petitioners/plaintiffs was refused. The prayer of the petitioners/plaintiffs for adjournment for the payment of cost was also refused by the Learned Trial Court. The case was thereafter fixed for evidence on behalf of the defendants and for payment and for payment of cost by the petitioners/plaintiffs. 7. The said order is not challenged in the present revisional application. it transpires from the record that the adjournment was sought for by the petitioner on 12th December, 2024 which was allowed subject to cost of Rs. 500/-. On the date fixed on 14th February, 2025, when the impugned order was passed, the petitoenrs/plaintiffs sought for adjournment for producing the evidence for depositing the cost awarded. As apparent from the impugned order no reason has been assigned by the Learned Trial Court for refusing the prayer of the petitioners/plaintiffs so far as his prayer for adjournment to produce witnesses is concerned. 8. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners/plaintiffs that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs seeking a decree of declaration. The case of the plaintiffs/petitioners would be highly prejudiced if the petitioners/plaintiffs are not afforded with opportunity to prove their case. From the impugned order it also transpires that the order awarding cost of Rs. 500/- for an 4 adjournment by an order dated 12th December, 2024 has not been challenged by the petitioners. In fact on the impugned date, the petitioners/plaintiffs sought adjournment to deposit such cost. 9. In consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and for better ends of justice, it would be appropriate to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to prove their case as made out in Title Suit No. 52 of 2021. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14th February, 2025 is hereby set aside. 10. The Learned Trial Court is directed to afford the plaintiffs/petitioners an opportunity to adduce evidence to prove their case subject, however, to payment of cost of Rs. 500/- already awarded vide order dated 12th December, 2024. Such cost will be paid within a fortnight hence. 11. Upon affording such opportunity to the petitioners/plaintiffs, the Learned Trial Court shall proceed with the trial of the Title Suit No. 52 of 2021 without giving any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. 12. With such directions and observations the instant revisional application being C.O. No. 1556 of 2025 is disposed of. 13. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all necessary formalities. (MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.) B.K.N. A.R. (Court)