JUDGMENT Plaintiff has preferred this appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dt. 10th March, 1996 passed by the Third Addl. District Judge, Durg in civil suit No. 7-N/93 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff did not produce any evidence in support of its case. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that it is the owner of the property mentioned in the schedule of the plaint and the defendant has no right, title and interest over the same. Plaintiff further prayed for quashing of the order dt. 9.12.92 passed in Criminal case No. 560/91 which inter alia directs for disposal of the property in favour of the defendant. When the matter came up before the trial Court on 18.3.96 an application on behalf of the plaintiff was filed for adjournment of the case, to bring the witness. The aforesaid prayer was made on the ground that the plaintiff s witnesses are engaged in official work. The aforesaid application of the plaintiff was rejected and ultimately the suit was dismissed. Shri Kale appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the reasoning of the learned Judge was greatly clouded that he proceeded on the assumption that the plaintiff did not produce the witness on 17.4.95, 4.8.95, 2.11.95 and 8.1.1996. Shri Tiwari, however, appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the suit itself being not maintainable, no useful purpose shall be served in setting aside the impugned judgment and decree and remitting back the matter for trial. While dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, the learned Judge has stated that although the case was fixed for 17.4.95, 4.8.95 and 2.11.95 plaintiff did not produce the witness. Shri Kale has drawn my attention to the order sheet of the aforesaid dates and contends that on 17.4.95 and 4.8.95 the case was not fixed for adducing evidence. As regards 2.11.95, Shri Kale contends that the case was earlier fixed to 14.9.95, but in view of the fact that the Ministerial staff of the Court went on strike, the same was not taken up on the said date and it was taken on 2.11.95. As regards 2.11.95, Shri Kale contends that the case was earlier fixed to 14.9.95, but in view of the fact that the Ministerial staff of the Court went on strike, the same was not taken up on the said date and it was taken on 2.11.95. He submits that only on 8.1.96 the plaintiff could not examine the witness and it was the fit case in which the learned Judge ought to have adjourned the case on 18.3.1996 for examination of the witness. I find substance in the submission of Shri Kale. The plaintiff did not produce its witness on 8.1.96. On the next date i.e. 18.3.96 application for adjournment of the case for adducing evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was filed. In the facts of the present case the learned Judge ought to have granted adjournment. The judgment and decree of the learned Judge is greatly clouded by erronous assumption that plaintiff did not produce its witnesses on 17.4.95, 4.8.95 and 2.11.95. Shri Tiwari, as started earlier, has submitted that the suit is not maintainable. In the present appeal, I am not inclined to go into this question. This issue shall be open before the trial Judge itself. Shri Kale states that the plaintiff shall appear before the trial Court on 11th August 97 and examine all its witness by 22nd August 97. Thereafter the witnesses on behalf of the defendant shall be examined by 5th Sept. 97. Learned Judge who shall be in seisin of the matter shall decide the suit by 15th September 97. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial Court for consideration in accordance with law within the aforesaid time-frame. Respondent shall be entitled for cost of this appeal. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-. Let the records be sent down immediately.