Judgment : Heard Shri Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith. 3. Notice was issued to the Respondents for disposal of the above Petition finally at the stage of admission. Despite of said notice, none appeared for the Respondent. 4. The above Petition challenges the Order dated 15.12.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Quepem, whereby the cross examination of the Petitioners of Dw.2 and Dw.3 was closed in view of the absence of the Advocate appearing for the Petitioners. 5. Shri Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has pointed out that the Petitioners have never sought any adjournment and that on the relevant date, the Advocate appearing for the Petitioners was present at 11.30 a.m. before the learned Judge but the witness was absent but, however, as he had to attend the funeral, he had to leave the Court and, as such, when the matter was called out at 12 O' Clock, the Petitioners requested for an adjournment which came to be refused. Learned Counsel further pointed out that an application was filed by the Petitioner to recall the said Order which was refused by impugned Order dated 15.12.2011. Learned Counsel further pointed out that on account of unexpected reasons, the Advocate for the Petitioners was not able to conduct the cross and, as such, the Petitioners cannot be penalised for any such default on the part of the Advocate. Learned Counsel further points out that the fact that the Advocate for the Petitioners had to attend a funeral on the said date of one of the relative of the Court staff has not been disputed by the Respondent. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has acted with material irregularity whilst passing the impugned Order and, as such, the Petitioners should be allowed to cross examine Dw. 2 and Dw.3 and that the impugned Order be quashed and set aside. Learned Counsel further brought to my notice that the Petitioner had deposited costs of Rs.5,000/- as condition precedent before issuing notice to the Respondents and though the Respondents were duly served, they failed to remain present. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel as also the records of the Petition. The avernments made in the Petition stand uncontroverted. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel as also the records of the Petition. The avernments made in the Petition stand uncontroverted. It transpires that the Petitioners were unable to cross examine Dw.2 and Dw.3 in view of the absence of the Advocate for the Petitioners who had to attend the funeral. The fact that the said Advocate attended the funeral is not in dispute. Considering the reasons which prevented the Advocate to remain present on the relevant date, the learned Judge was not justified to close the cross evidence of the Petitioners with regard to Dw.2 and Dw.3. The Petitioners apparently had a justifiable reason to see an adjournment on the relevant date and taking note of the averments at para 6 and ground 3 of the above Petition that the Petitioners have not sought any adjournment during the course of the trial for the last four months, which proceeded practically on weekly basis which have not been disputed by the Respondents, I find that the learned Judge was not justified to pass the impugned Order. Considering the inconvenience caused to the Respondents on account of the said adjournment, the same can be compensated by payment of costs by the Petitioners. Subject to the payment of the said costs of Rs. 5,000/-, the impugned Order passed by the learned Judge dated 15.12.2011 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. In view of the above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) The impugned Order dated 15.12.2012 is quashed and set aside and interim Order of stay of the Regular Civil Suit no. 75/2002 stands vacated. (ii) The Petitioners are permitted to continue with the cross examination of Dw.2 and Dw.3 in accordance with law. (iii) The Respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4(a) to (c) who are stated to be contesting Respondents, are permitted to withdraw the sum of Rs.5,000/-deposited in this Court towards costs. (iv)Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (v) Petition stands disposed of accordingly.