Short Note : 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 16-9-1976 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Indore, in Civil Suit No. 24-B of 75 whereby opportunity to the applicants to cross-examine four witnesses Dinesh Kumar, Vijay, Vinay Kumar and Vishwanath who were examined by the non-applicants was not given. 2. Held : On perusal of the order of the trial Court it is clear that on 16-8-1976 these witnesses were produced by the non-applicant in the witness box. On that day Shri Nigam, who appeared for the applicants made an application to the effect that Shri Bansal, Advocate, who was appearing for the applicants had gone to Delhi to present an appeal and that the case may be adjourned to some other date. That application was rejected. As no lawyer appeared on behalf of the applicants at the time when the aforesaid witnesses were examined by the non-applicant, the applicant No.2 Sitaram did not put any question to the witnesses in cross-examination. On the next date of hearing i.e. 16-9-1976, the applicants counsel Shri Bansal appeared and again made an application for recalling the four witnesses who could not be cross-examined on account of his absence on the previous date. That application was rejected. It is true that on 16-8-1976 when the applicant's counsel Shri Bansal had gone out he should have made proper arrangement to conduct the calc on behalf of the applicants. However, the claim in the suit is for a sum of Rs. 32,154.43 p. Looking to the pleadings of the parties and the issues raised in the case, the trial Court could have adjourned the case in the interest of justice on payment of cost which the non-applicant might have been required to incur in securing the attendance of the witnesses for the adjourned date. It is not a case wherein the applicants or their counsel deliberately avoided to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the non-applicant. Simply giving an opportunity to the applicant No.2 who was personally present in the Court to cross-examine the witnesses without the assistance of any lawyer was a bare formality. As no effective cross-examination of the witnesses examined by the non-applicant could be made on behalf of the applicants a prejudice has been caused to the applicants. Simply giving an opportunity to the applicant No.2 who was personally present in the Court to cross-examine the witnesses without the assistance of any lawyer was a bare formality. As no effective cross-examination of the witnesses examined by the non-applicant could be made on behalf of the applicants a prejudice has been caused to the applicants. I am, therefore, of the view that the trial, Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it to safeguard the interest of justice and hence this is a fit case wherein this Court, in revision, should interfere. 3. For the above reasons this revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the trial Court with the direction that it shall recall the witnesses Dinesh Kumar, Vijay, Vinaykumar and Vishwanath at the instance the applicants for cross-examination on the condition that the process fee and diet money of the witnesses shall be borne by the applicants. Revision allowed.