A. S. QURESHI, J. ( 1 ) IN this revision the petitioner is challenging three orders passed by the learned Second Joint Civil Judge Senior Division Mehsana passed on the same day i. e. 24/03/1982 on three different appli- cations-Exhibits 41 42 and 43 in the suit When the applicant was in the witness box the petitioner s advocate gave an application Exhibit 41 stating that for the purpose of crossexamination certain certified copies of the documents produced in an earlier suit were necessary and therefore the examination may be adjourned for one hour to enable him to obtain the certified copies which he expected to receive in about an hours time. The learned Judge was pleased to reject the said application on the ground that the next witness was a doctor who should not be sent back at the whim of the advocate. The application for adjournment having been rejected the learned Judge proceeded with the matter whereupon the learned advocate gave another application-Ex- hibit No. 42 stating therein that he wanted to approach this Court in revision against the order just passed on his earlier application and therefore the suit may be adjourned to enable him to file a revision in this Court. That application also came to be rejected by the learned Judge. Proceeding still further the learned Judge called upon the other side to examine the Doctor who was the next witness. The learned advocate for the applicant thereupon gave a third application-Exhibit No. 45 stating that in absence of the copies he has sought to obtain it was not possible for him to crossexamine the witness and hence some time may be granted. The learned Judge was pleased to reject this application also stating that such application was only a lever to stop the functioning of the Court. All these applications were rejected on the same day within few moments on the reasons stated above. ( 2 ) MISS V. P. Shah learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that it was not reasonable on the part of the learned Judge to have rej- ected the application for granting only one hours time to enable the learned advocate of the applicant to examine the witness after he had obtained certified copies which were expected to be received within an hour or so. According to her the learned Judge was not justified in rejec- ting these applications on the ground that the next witness was a doctor and that it was not proper to send him back on that day. The conten- tion of Miss Shah appears to be justified and it seems that in the circumstances of the case the learned Judge could have better exercised his discretion by granting an hours time to enable the learned advocate to proceed with the crossexamination of the witness after he has obtained the certified copies within an hour or so. Miss Shah also has raised a grievance that the learned Judge was not justified in refusing to grant adjournment to enable her to approach this Court in revision against the order just passed by the learned Judge. There again it seems that Miss Shahs grievance is not wholly untenable. Mr. C. V. Jani the learned counsel for the opponent has urged that the petitioner had been granted adjournment earlier for obtaining certified copies of some documents mentioned in the application filed earlier and now on the day in question that is on 24/03/1982 giving another appli- cation asking for time to obtain certified copies of some other documents was only an attempt to prolong the matter and to postpone the exami- nation of witness. While it is true that at times applications are given in the Courts in the midst of the witness being examined or cross-ex- amined which does upset the Courts working and create lot of diffi- culties in certain circumstances it is necessary and proper for the Court to see that to do justice between the parties either party should get a fair chance of producing such material as it considers necessary for its case. While frivolous application for adjournment should not be entertained and all efforts to delay the proceeding should be firmly put down no party should be put in a position where it is prevented from leading the evidence important to its case which if reasonable opportunity is given could be adduced within reasonable time. In such circumstances the Court has to use its discretion with utmost care and caution. In the present case the requirement for granting time for an hour does not seem to be quite unreasonable one and the learned Judge ought to have granted this much time. In such circumstances the Court has to use its discretion with utmost care and caution. In the present case the requirement for granting time for an hour does not seem to be quite unreasonable one and the learned Judge ought to have granted this much time. In fact by not granting one hours time which has led to the present revision application ultimately the suit is delayed much longer than what it would have been if the adjournment had been granted as sought for Mr. Jani has been quite reasonable in accepting the proposition that in the circumsta- nces of the case it would have been better and the case would have been disposed of much earlier if the applications had been granted. This revision therefore has to be allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Judge on the aforesaid three applications are hereby set aside. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. .