ODRER : 1. Plaintiff Akbarali and his son Fakruddin filed a suit against two defendants, who are Opponents in the present case, for recovering from them Rs. 5000/- as damages. As the claim was contested by the defendants the trial proceeded, issues were framed and the plaintiffs were directed to lead their evidence, on 28th August 1952, the plaintiffs had to examine one witness Ahmadbhai son of Hiftullabhai. On that day before the witness was examined, plaintiffs put in an application which is at page 199 of the record, stating there in that the witness was likely to be hostile to them and that it would be embarrassing to them if this witness was shown any special consideration either by providing a seat on the dias or in any other manner. The application was rejected by the learned Civil Judge on the ground that the witness was a local chief of the Bohra community and their religious head and that there was no objection to show him some grace. A seat was provided for the witness on the dias whereupon the plaintiffs again submitted an application for adjournment on the ground that they want to approach the High Court in revision. The learned Civil Judge rejected this prayer also. It appears that the counsel for the plaintiffs informed the Court that in case his application for adjournment was refused he would not examine the witness. Aggrieved by this order the plaintiffs have filed this revision application. 2. Mr. Karanjkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner criticised the action of the Civil Judge very severely. He submitted that giving any special treatment to the witness under the circumstances mentioned by him in his application had embarrassed his client. He submitted that the courts had to treat all the witnesses alike and a discrimination based on the so-called status of a person was unjust and unfair. He referred to an Allahabad decision reported in - 'In re Ram Chand', AIR 1953 All 712 (A), in support of his contention. I agree with the contention of the learned counsel that a discrimination based on the supposed difference in status is most undesirable. Mr. Bhalerao, the learned counsel for the opponents did not say any thing in opposition to this point of view. 3. Mr. I agree with the contention of the learned counsel that a discrimination based on the supposed difference in status is most undesirable. Mr. Bhalerao, the learned counsel for the opponents did not say any thing in opposition to this point of view. 3. Mr. Karanjkar further submitted that the evidence of this witness which was closed by the trial Court should be re-opened in view of the circumstance mentioned above. No formal order closing the evidence of this witness was brought to my notice and I am unable to help the plaintiffs. They may if so advised, approach the trial Court and that Court may be able to give them the necessary relief. 4. With these remarks the revision application is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs in this revision. Order accordingly.