JUDGMENT The revision is directed against the order dated 11.5.93, whereby the tenant-applicant's right of cross-examine has been closed. The brief history of the case is that N.A. landlord filed a suit for eviction on grounds of bona fide need. The need was resisted by the applicant-tenant. The case was proceeded and evidence was to be recorded on 15.4.93. Witness Shankarlal was present that day. His st.1tement was taken and thereafter at the request of counsel for tenant the case was adjourned to 11.5.93, as the counsel for tenant wanted to cross-examine the witness on the next day. On 11.5.93, the witnesses i.e. Shankarlal and Suresh were present but the counsel for tenant was not present and wanted adjournment for cross-examination. The junior Counsel was present. The adjournment was refused and the right of cross-examination was closed. The case was fixed for evidence of the tenant. Now this revision has been filed and the order of refusal of adjournment has been challenged. The contention of the applicant is that as the counsel was out it was incumbent upon the Court to have adjourned the case for cross-examination. I think this contention of the learned counsel for applicant is fallacious. It was for the counsel of the parties to take adjustment from the Court. If the counsels are absent from the Court at their sweet will, the Court would be justified in proceeding with the case. Learned counsel referred a case reported in 1985 MPWN 503 . But that was a case where none of the witnesses were present. Here it was a case where the witnesses were present on 15.4.93 and again on 11.5.93. Despite the presence of the witness second time he was not cross-examined. The parties can be forced to appear in the Court as and when required but the witnesses cannot be harassed to that extent. They cannot be compelled to attend the Court again and again because of the absence of the parties counsel. It is for the party to make arrangement of the counsel. Counsel, if wants to remain out, he may seek prior adjustment. This was an adjourned case; that too at the instance of counsel for defence. Counsel for the applicant thereafter referred to a case reported in 1989 (I) MPWN SN 116 (CR No. 190/88). It is for the party to make arrangement of the counsel. Counsel, if wants to remain out, he may seek prior adjustment. This was an adjourned case; that too at the instance of counsel for defence. Counsel for the applicant thereafter referred to a case reported in 1989 (I) MPWN SN 116 (CR No. 190/88). That was a case where the plaintiff closed his case after seven years and the tenant was not allowed to lead evidence. It is not the case here. The tenant-defendant has been allowed to adduce evidence. Learned counsel thereafter referred to a case reported in 1987 - (I) MPWN SN 174 (SA No. 200/86). I agree with the principle that the unreasonable refusal is not proper and the sufficiency of the cause has to be seen. That is not the case here. The case was adjourned at the request of counsel and thereafter counsel failed to appear without seeking prior adjustment. From the discussion above it is evident that RCA was perfectly justified in proceeding with the case. As a result the revision petition is dismissed with cost. Counsel fee Rs. 100/-.