JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Plaintiff in O.S. No. 24 of 1978 Class-III in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, is the Petitioner challenging the order dated 9-4-1980 refusing the prayer of the Petitioner to give him an opportunity to call for the documents from the Municipal Office, Bhubaneswar and to prove the same. 2. Suit is for specific performance of contract based on agreement dated 4-9-1976. Allegation in the plaint is that Defendant executed the same after receiving an advance of Rs. 15,000/- from the Plaintiff to sell a piece of land in Mouza-Baragara as detailed in the plaint Schedule. 3. Defendant has alleged that she is an illiterate lady has not entered into any agreement as alleged. 4. Plaintiff has examined two witnesses including himself and closed his case Defendant examined herself as D.W. 1 and closed her case. 5. On 9-4-1984, the day on which evidence of D.W. 1 was closed, an application was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff to give him opportunity to prove through the Municipal records that Defendant is not illiterate. The basis of such an application was answer of Defendant in cross-examination that she had applied to the Municipality for permission to construct a house. This prayer of the Plaintiff was objected to on behalf of the Defendant on the ground that the same would amount to rendering assistance to Plaintiff to fill-up the lacuna in the Plaintiffs evidence. 6. Objection of the Defendant having been accepted by the trial court, Plaintiff's prayer was rejected of the same day. 7. On 25-4-1980, the matter came up for admission before S.K. Ray, C.J. (as he than was). Notice on the question of admission and hearing was issued. Interim stay of further proceeding in the suit was granted. Along with it, an order was passed to the following effect: ...The Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, is directed to call for the documents (application filed by the Defendant for sanction of the Plaintiff for construction of house) from the Municipal Office as prayed for in the Petitioner's petition dated 9-4-1980 and keep the same with him until further orders. On receipt of the order, the learned Subordinate Judge has directed to call for the documents as per direction of the High Court. 8. At the time of hearing, Mr. On receipt of the order, the learned Subordinate Judge has directed to call for the documents as per direction of the High Court. 8. At the time of hearing, Mr. Pal for the opposite party very streneously urged that the scope of a revision under CPC being very limited the discretion of the trial court ought not to be interfered with. He has relied upon the decisions reported in Alekh Pradhan and Ors. v. Bhramar Pal and Anr. 45 (1975) C.L.T. 75 and K. Bahadur Singh dl Son v. Delhi Municipality AIR 1982 Del 26 in support of his contention. In the Orissa decision the discretion was exercised by the trial court by allowing the petition of the plaintiffs to enable them to examine the survey knowing Advocate. Permission to examine a witness furthers the ends of justice by which the court is in a position to ascertain the real truth. In such background this Court has held that the discretion exercised by the trial court is not to be interfered with in Civil Revision. In the decision of Delhi High Court, Plaintiff of that case had been given 3 or 4 opportunities to summon his witnesses or to produce them in court. Inspite of it, he did not examine any witness. In his application for permitting to examine witness he also did not assign any specific reason for not adducing his evidence at any earlier stage. In that background the trial court refused to exercise its discretion and High Court did not interfere with the exercise of direction. Strong reliance is placed by Mr. Pal on the observation in paragraph 5, at page 29 of K. Bahadur Singh's case AIR 1982 Del 26 to the effect: ...Further opportunity to the Plaintiff for adducing his evidence cannot be granted merely because he will be highly prejudiced in his claim or because the opposite party can be compensated by way of costs.... This observation of the Delhi High Court is to be read in the context it was made. The facts of K. Bahaduy Singh's case AIR 1982 Del 26 are so different that I am not able to persuade myself to accept the observations made in that decision to apply the same to the facts of this case. 9. This observation of the Delhi High Court is to be read in the context it was made. The facts of K. Bahaduy Singh's case AIR 1982 Del 26 are so different that I am not able to persuade myself to accept the observations made in that decision to apply the same to the facts of this case. 9. After perusal of the impugned order, I am satisfied that the learned Subordinate Judge has exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity in coming to the conclusion that by giving a suggestion to the Defendant, an inference can be drawn that Plaintiff was well aware of the Defendant's putting her signature on some papers in Municipality records. For the 1st time in cross-examination, it was revealed by the Defendant that she had applied to the Municipality. On that basis, a suggestion was made that she has signed the document which she denied. The submission of Mr. Pal that it would amount to filling up the lacuna in Plaintiffs evidence is not acceptable in the circumstances. I am of the view that it would further the ends of justice in revealing the truth by production of the document and proving the same. Added to it, I find that this Court has already directed the document to, be called for from the Municipal Office and the learned Subordinate Judge has also called for the same. 10. Defendant has suffered a protracted trial. This suffering of the Defendant can be compensated with costs. I direct the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant a sum of Rs. 750/- as costs as a condition precedent to take steps to reopen the matter. The cost if paid to the Defendant will not be taken into consideration while assessing the costs of the suit in the decree. 11. As the suit has already been heard in part. 1 direct the Plaintiff and the Defendant to appear in the trial court on July 30, 1984. On being satisfied that cost as awarded has either been paid or deposited, in case of non-availability or refusal by the Defendant or her Advocate, trial court shall fix a date for the parties to adduce their further evidence after taking necessary steps for the same and shall proceed with the trial of the suit. On being satisfied that cost as awarded has either been paid or deposited, in case of non-availability or refusal by the Defendant or her Advocate, trial court shall fix a date for the parties to adduce their further evidence after taking necessary steps for the same and shall proceed with the trial of the suit. In case, cost is not paid or deposited by the Plaintiff on or before 30th July, 1984, as directed in this older, the trial court shall hear the arguments of the parties on that day and shall proceed to deliver the judgment. 12. Failure of the Plaintiff to payor deposit the cost awarded within time granted will debar him from the relief sought for in this Civil Revision which would have been the result in case the Civil Revision would have been dismissed. Cost always follows the event unless mitigating circumstances exist. Defendant has appeared in this Court and has engaged a counsel. She has also suffered the anxiety of a protracted litigation. Therefore, even if Plaintiff would not be able to avail the opportunity given to him on account of his failure to payor deposit the cost, Defendant is entitled to the cost of Rs. 750/- in this Civil Revision which she may recover by execution of this order. Subject to what has been said earlier, this Civil Revision is allowed. Final Result : Allowed