Heard on admission. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner having argued at length wants time till tomorrow. The prayer for an adjournment is refused. This practice should be deprecated. It has become the order of the day that after advancing arguments and consuming a lot of time of the Court, adjournment is sought to bring citations etc., when it is felt that he has not been able to substantiate his contentions. Learned counsels are expected to be well prepared with case laws. etc. when case is fixed for hearing, it is not possible to allow two hearings: one for argument and the other for bringing citation of case laws. If some counsel is not fully prepared, it would be better if he seeks adjournment in the beginning rather than making such prayer after submitting lengthy arguments and consuming a lot of time of the Court. There is no substance in this revision petition. Learned trial Court has dismissed the plaintiff's suit in his absence when the case was fixed for hearing on the application filed by the defendant. At the worst the application could have been disposed of in favour of the defendant but the suit could not have been dismissed when it was not fixed for hearing as such. The application filed by the plaintiff for setting aside the order dismissing the suit was rejected by the learned trial Court on the ground that the plaintiff has not given satisfactory explanation for his absence on the date when the suit was dismissed. However, learned appellate Court very correctly observed that the trial Court fell in error in dismissing the suit when it was not fixed for hearing and again in refusing to restore the suit. There appears no error of jurisdiction on the part of the learned Court below and it is not at all a fit case for exercising the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The revision petition is dismissed summarily so also the MCP No.479/2001 also stands disposed of as revision is dismissed.