Short Note : 1. The applicant had filed the revision against an order passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Susner whereby he imposed costs of Rs. 80 for adjournment on the applicant. 2. Held: After going through the record and hearing the arguments, this Court is of opinion that this revision deserves to be allowed. It is no doubt true that a party is expected to keep its witnesses present on a date fixed for its evidence. But when a party had bound down the witnesses for that date and if, any how. they do not appear, ordinarily it cannot be said to be a negligence or carelessness of that party. In the instant case, it appears that the applicant had not undertaken to keep the witnesses present but had paid their process in the past and the witnesses had appeared in the Court but, the case could not be taken up, they were bound done for 2-9-1975. In these situations, the trial Court was not justified in levying a heavy penalty of costs of Rs. 80 and also in making it a condition precedent in case the applicant wanted to participate further in that proceeding. Revision allowed.