Item- 38. sg 30-09-2026 Ct. 6 CO 3392 of 2026 Pradip Kumar Bera & Ors. Versus Dayamoy Mondal & Ors. Mr. Asit Baran Raut Mr. Tuhin Subhra Raut Ms. Ishita Raut …for the petitioners Mr. Madhan Mohan Roy Mr. Kaustav Manna Mr. Sutapa Upadhyay …for the opposite parties This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against an order being no. 170 dated 20th August, 2026 passed learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur, in Title Suit No. 55 of 2013. By the order impugned, the evidence of the DW-2 stood closed and a date was fixed for argument. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that one of the defendants, namely, Prasata Kumar Bera fell ill on the relevant date and since the conducting advocate was engaged in another court, an adjournment was prayed for. He submits that the learned trial judge rejected the prayer for adjournment and closed the evidence of the DW-2. The learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties vehemently opposes the prayer of the learned advocate for the petitioners. He submits that in the application for adjournment it was stated that Prasanta Kumar Bera, senior advocate, was the conducting advocate. But Mr. Bera has not been engaged as a conducting advocate for the defendants. However, the fact remains that the conducting advocate Mr. Monimohan Rana was engaged in another court 2 at the relevant point of time. For such reason, this Court is inclined to afford a last opportunity to the defendants to adduce the evidence of the DW-2. This civil revisional application stands disposed of by setting aside the order dated 20th August, 2026 subject to condition that DW-2 shall remain present in court on the next date fixed i.e. on 26th November, 2026 for adducing the evidence. The learned trial judge is requested to take up the evidence of DW-2 and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible but preferably within a period of four weeks from the next date without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. It is, however, made clear that if the DW-2 does not appear on the next date fixed before learned trial judge, this order shall not enure to the benefit of the defendants and the learned trial judge shall proceed in accordance with law. The learned trial judge is further requested to make an endeavour to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)