JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 18.10.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Civil Judge), Jaisalmer in Civil Suit No. 71/93 denying opportunity to the defendant-tenant to cross-examine Shri Jagdamba Lal. 2. Today, the present revision petition is posted for admission but with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, I propose to dispose of it on merits. 3. It is strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the revisionist Mr. B.M. Bhojak that the defendant-tenant could not be able to cross-examine Shri Jagdamba Lal, as his counsel was busy in preparation of the marriage of his son. Due to aforesaid reason, the counsel for the defendant-tenant was not present in Court and adjournment was sought but it was refused. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. J.K. Chanda refuted the aforesaid argument. He urged before me that the defendant-tenant is adopting dilatory tactics to delay disposal of the civil suit. According to him, there is no jurisdictional error in the order impugned, therefore, the revision itself is not maintainable. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar. Now, for entertaining the revision under section 115 CPC, a mere jurisdictional error is not sufficient. The Court is also required to examine as to whether if the order impugned is allowed to stand, it would occasion a failure of justice or it would cause irreparable injury to the revisionist. After testing the order on the anvil of proviso (b) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 115, CPC, I am of the opinion, that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity should be given to the defendant-tenant to cross-examine Shri Jagdamba Lal and if such opportunity is not afforded to him, it would occasion a failure of justice and also it would cause irreparable injury to him. 6. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, the revisionist is given only one more opportunity to cross-examine Shri Jagdamba Lal provided he pays a sum of Rs. 1,100/- as costs to the plaintiff-landlord for inconvenience suffered by him. 6. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, the revisionist is given only one more opportunity to cross-examine Shri Jagdamba Lal provided he pays a sum of Rs. 1,100/- as costs to the plaintiff-landlord for inconvenience suffered by him. It is further made clear that if the revisionist fails to deposit the aforesaid costs within one month from today, then, he would not be entitled to cross-examine Shri Jagdamba Lal.As a result of the afore-mentioned discussion, the order impugned dated 18.10.95 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaisalmer is hereby set aside and the instant 'revision petition is allowed with a direction that the revisionist will be given one more opportunity to cross-examine Shri Jagdamba Lal on 25.3.1996 provided he pays Rs. 1,100/- as costs to the plaintiff-landlord on or before 25.3.1996. For any reason whatsoever if cross-examination could not be made possible on 25.3.1996, the learned trial Court would be at liberty to fix any other date at his earliest convenience.Both the parties are present in Court, therefore, they are directed to remain present before the learned trial Court on 25.3.1996.Revision allowed. *******