Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. (2). This petition is directed against the order dated 23rd May, 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby he declined to summon the three prosecution witnesses, namely, Phool Mohammad (PW-16), Prithvi Raj (PW-17) and Dr. Chenroop Sethia (PW-18) for cross-examination. The ground on which the application was moved by the accused-petitioner was that at the time when the above named witnesses were examined in Court on behalf of the prosecution the counsel for the petitioner was not present and the petitioner was himself unable to cross-examine the witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application filed by the accused-petitioner on the ground that sufficient opportu-nity was given to the accused to cross-examine the witnesses and that the witness Phool Mohammad (PW-16) had appeared in the Court for the purpose of giving the statement twice and that it was difficult to enforce the attendance of the witness and the case was an old one. It was further observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that if the witnesses were re-summoned the disposal of the casemight be delayed. (3). The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when Phool Mohammad (PW-16), Prithvi Raj (PW-17) and Dr. Chenroop Sethia (PW-18) were examined in chief, Shri Rajendra Singh, counsel for the petitioner could not appear for cross-examination and that in the instant case if the opportunity to cross-exa-mine the witnesses is not given the interest of justice might suffer because Phool Mohammad (PW-16) is the Investigating Officer whose evidence is of material importance in the case and Dr. Chenroop Sethia (PW-18) is the doctor who conducted the autopsy. Prithvi Raj (PW-17) is the Police Officer who registered the case on the basis of the report Ex.P/19 which was brought to the Police Stationbefore him. (4). Chenroop Sethia (PW-18) is the doctor who conducted the autopsy. Prithvi Raj (PW-17) is the Police Officer who registered the case on the basis of the report Ex.P/19 which was brought to the Police Stationbefore him. (4). Section 465 Cr.P.C. provides that ``Subject to the provisions contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered by a Court of appeal, confirmation or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation,order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution, unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. (5). The words `` a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned, clearly indi-cate that before a finding or order or proceeding may be altered or quashed the Court has to be satisfied that a failure of justice has in fact occurred or is likely to occur. (6). Whether in a given case failure of justice has occurred or not is required to be seen in view of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. Merely be-cause a certain illegality or irregularity has been committed by the lower Court is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that failure of justice must have occurred. (7). It cannot be over estimated that it is the requirement of the day that disposal of the cases must be expedited. It is also true that parties are expected to be present in the Court on the dates fixed for hearing and at the time when the caseis called for hearing. It is also true that Courts have a jurisdiction either to grant adjournment or not to grant adjournments when any request is made before them either on account of absence of the counsel or for any other reason. If a Court refuses to adjourn the case the order cannot be said to be illegal in any manner because the Court has ample jurisdiction to adjourn the case or to refuse to adjournthe case. (8). If a Court refuses to adjourn the case the order cannot be said to be illegal in any manner because the Court has ample jurisdiction to adjourn the case or to refuse to adjournthe case. (8). In cases where the lower Court has passed an order which was within its jurisdiction, and there was in fact an occasion for passing that order, in order to show that failure of justice has occurred or it is likely to occur if the order is allowed to stand, some other facts would also be necessary. A prejudice in law can be pro- ved by showing non-compliance of law but if prejudice is occurred in fact, for the purpose of Section 465 Cr.P.C. it must be shown to be existing by the relevant facts. (5). In the instant case after the perusal of the statement of Phool Mohammad (PW-16) and Dr. Chenroop (PW-18), I feel convinced that if the opportunity to cross-examine these two witnesses is denied, a failure of justice may occur because the evidence of these two witnesses is material and is likely to have an important bearing on the decision of the case. Therefore, in view of Section 311Cr.P.C. it is necessary to recall PW-16, PW-17 and PW 18 and put question to them to test their reliability. (6). For above reason I am inclined to accept this revision petition not on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed any illegality or irregularity but on the ground that in spite of the fact that the order refusing to grantadjournment for cross-examination was within his jurisdiction under Section 309 Cr.P.C., the object of just decision of the case would be defeated if the above named witnesses go uncross- examined i.e. withoug being subjected to the cross-examination. The submission that if the testimony of Phool Mohammad (PW-16) and Dr. Chenroop Sethia (PW-18) is allowed to be used without being subjected tocross-examination, interest of justice is likely to suffer, appears to be substantial and acceptable in view of Section 311 Cr.P.C. (7). For reasons mentioned above the impugned order dated 23rd May, 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh is hereby quashed and set aside and it is hereby directed that Phool Mohammad (PW-16), Prithviraj (PW-17) and Dr. Chenroop Singh (PW-18) shall be summoned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh for the purpose of cross- examination. For reasons mentioned above the impugned order dated 23rd May, 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh is hereby quashed and set aside and it is hereby directed that Phool Mohammad (PW-16), Prithviraj (PW-17) and Dr. Chenroop Singh (PW-18) shall be summoned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh for the purpose of cross- examination. It shall be the responsibility of the accused- petitioner to make arrangements for cross-examination of the witnesses on the date to be fixed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. it may not be out of place to mention that at the time of taking dates theparties may place their difficulties before the Court and once an order for fixing a date has been made by the Court the party should take every necessary step within their power to proceed with the hearing of the case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge may be requested to fix the case for cross-examination of the witnesses named above placing before him the difficulty if any being faced by thepetitioner as his counsel has to come from Bikaner to Ratangarh.