K.S. LODHA, J —I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the order of the learned Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Nawa, dated 4.2.87. I have also perused the affidavits filed by Shri Mahaveer Prasad and Shri Hanuman Singh, Advocate. 2. The revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff against the order of the learned Munsif Magistrate, Nawa dated 4.2.87, by which the plaintiffs evidence was closed. A bare perusal of the order would reveal that this order has been passed by the learned Munsiff Magistrate on account of undue haste. The plaintiff was in the witness box on 4. 2. 87 and wanted to prove a receipt alleged to have been obtained from the Municipal Board, Nawa in respect of the purchase of the plot in dispute. However, that receipt was not at that time available with the learned counsel as the same had been handed over to another counsel in connection with another suit. Therefore, the statements of the plaintiff could not be completed and according to the order-sheet the learned counsel for the plaintiff closed the evidence. The learned Munsiff has observed that in these circumstances, he had no option but to close the evidence. When the original receipt the basis suit was not available at the time,, it cannot be envisaged that the learned counsel would have left the plaintiffs statement incomplete and closed his evidence. What appears to have happened is that the learned counsel must have prayed for an adjournment, which was not exceeded to by the learned Munsiff and in the huff of the moment, the learned counsel may have stated that if adjournment was not granted, his evidence may be closed and the learned Munsiff Magistrate appears to have taken it literally. It also appears that as soon as the evidence of the plaintiff was thus closed, an application was filed by the learned counsel for re-opening the evidence and one more application was filed on 5.2.87 showing the intention of the plaintiff to get the case transferred. These subsequent steps taken by the learned counsel clearly justify the inference drawn above. The plaintiff Mahaveer Prasad and Shri Hanuman Singh, Advocate have filed their affidavits in this respect, which have not been controverted on behalf of the opposite party. These subsequent steps taken by the learned counsel clearly justify the inference drawn above. The plaintiff Mahaveer Prasad and Shri Hanuman Singh, Advocate have filed their affidavits in this respect, which have not been controverted on behalf of the opposite party. In these circumstances, I am clearly of the opinion that the learned Munsiff acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction in closing the plaintiffs evidence. The order, therefore, cannot be sustained. 3. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the order of the learned Munsiff Magistrate closing the plaintiffs evidence is set aside. The matter is sent back to him to proceed with it from the stage when the plaintiff was being examined. As the affidavits have not been controverted, I shall make no order as to costs of this revision. The parties shall appear before the learned Munsiff Magistrate, Nawa on 1.2.88