JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.01.2005 passed by the Rajasthan Wakf Tribunal, Jaipur ('the learned Tribunal', in short). 2. It is the case of the petitioner that no effective opportunity of hearing was given to him. It is also the case of the petitioner that the exact land which falls within the Masjid has not been decided and the matter was referred to the Railway Department for its decision. According to the petitioner, he had engaged the services of Mr. Ammanullah Kha. However, due to a festival on 20.01.2005, Mr. Ammanullah could not fully prepare the case. Thus, he was not in a position to argue the case before the learned Tribunal. According to the petitioner, Mr. Prahlad Gupta had lost his mother, Smt. Mishri Devi, therefore, he could not appear before the learned Tribunal. Thus, the case could not have been effectively argued on behalf of the petitioner. Secondly, when the petitioner sought adjournment due to the personal difficulties of his counsel, the same was refused. Thirdly, the extent of land in dispute has not been decided by the learned Tribunal. Instead, the case has been referred to the Railway Department. In fact, the learned Tribunal should have decided the entire controversy on its own. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Alok Garg, the learned counsel for the respondent, has contended that the petitioner was represented through his counsel and sufficient opportunity was given to him to argue the case. Moreover, the case has been referred to the Railway Department and now it is for the Railway Department to decide the controversy. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, after perusing the impugned order, and with the consent of both the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being decided at the admission stage itself. 5. Although adjournments need not be given at the drop of hat, but adjournment ought to be given in case of any personal difficulty faced by the counsel such as death in his family or a religious festival celebrated by the community. After all, one of the cardinal principles of law is that justice should not only be done, but it must appears to be done. Therefore, ample opportunity of hearing should have been granted to the petitioner by the learned Tribunal. After all, one of the cardinal principles of law is that justice should not only be done, but it must appears to be done. Therefore, ample opportunity of hearing should have been granted to the petitioner by the learned Tribunal. Since, an application was already filed along with the death certificate, the learned Tribunal should have realised that Mr. Prahlad Gupta faced a problem in appearing before the learned Tribunal. It does not behoove the learned Tribunal to take a hyper-technical view of the matter and to decide the case in hot-haste. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has to decide the extent of land in dispute, instead of passing the buck to the Railway Department. For, the learned Tribunal has sufficient powers to decide this case on its own. 6. In this view of the matter, this Court remands the case back to the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal is directed to grant sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to decide the dispute with regard to the land in dispute, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The impugned order dated 20.01.2005 passed by the learned Tribunal is, hereby, quashed and set aside.With these observations, this writ petition is, hereby, allowed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 04.05.2009.Writ Petition Allowed. *******