Judgment : 1. Heard Mr. Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. T. George John holding for Mr. Dukle, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 10/11/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Margao-Goa in Regular civil Suit No. 215/2011/E, whereby the oral request of petitioner no. 1 (defendant no. 1) for time was rejected and cross-examination of P.W.1 (plaintiff no. 1) by him was closed and the cross-examination of PW1 by respondent no. 2 (defendant no. 2) was closed since she as well as her Advocate were absent. 4. Petitioners are defendants in the said suit whereas respondents are the plaintiffs. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 5. The plaintiffs have filed the said suit No. 215/2011/E for declaration, permanent injunction and seeking direction to the Commissioner of Excise to cancel the excise licence of the defendants in respect of their Bar and Restaurant. As per the Roznama dated 11/10/2013, the deposition of PW1 (plaintiff no. 1) commenced on that date and he tendered his affidavit-in-evidence and also tendered various documents relied upon by the plaintiffs. It is seen from the said Roznama that in fact the defendant no.1 was present and had orally requested for time. However, without assigning any reasons, his request for time was rejected and cross-examination of PW1 by her was closed whereas cross-examination by defendant no. 2 was closed as she and her Advocate were both absent. 6. According to the defendants, on 11/10/2003, their advocate was sick and had informed them that he would not be able to come to the Court for cross-examination and had requested the defendants to seek time. Accordingly, the defendant no. 1, who is husband of the defendant no. 2, after the examination-in-chief of PW1, brought to the notice of the Court that their advocate was sick and orally requested for time. 7. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs. They say the copy of the affidavit-in-reply, filed before the trial Court, was served on the advocate for the defendants on 12/12/2012, but right from the time of the receipt of affidavit-in-evidence, the defendants have not shown any interest. 7. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs. They say the copy of the affidavit-in-reply, filed before the trial Court, was served on the advocate for the defendants on 12/12/2012, but right from the time of the receipt of affidavit-in-evidence, the defendants have not shown any interest. According to them, the matter was fixed for further evidence of PW1 on 18/01/2013, when the defendant, in the absence of advocate, orally prayed for time which was granted by the trial court and the matter was fixed on 03/04/2013. The plaintiffs have further stated that on 03/04/2013 as well as on 12/06/2013, on account of sickness of the plaintiff, time was sought by the advocate of the plaintiffs. It is their grievance that on both these dates, neither the defendants nor their advocate had appeared before the court. According to the plaintiffs, again on 17/07/2013 and 06/09/2013, the advocate for the defendants was absent without any reason and the defendant had orally prayed for time which the trial court granted and fixed the matter on 11/10/2013. They have stated that on 11/10/2013, the plaintiff no. 1 stepped into the witness box and produced the documents. Plaintiffs say that the bare request of the defendant no. 1 for time was rightly declined by the trial court, considering the conduct of the defendants. The plaintiffs denied the reasons for absence of the advocate, as stated by the defendants, in the petition. 8. After having perused the averments made in the petition, and reply and the Roznama dated 11/10/2013, in the suit and having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that considering the principles of natural justice, the impugned order is harsh, arbitrary and not sustainable. The order does not say that the plaintiffs or their advocate had objected to adjournment. Absolutely, no reason of whatsoever nature, for not granting adjournment has been given by the trial court. When defendant no. 1 was very much present and had requested for adjournment on the ground of absence of his Advocate, If any inconvenience was caused to PW1 or the plaintiffs on account the witness not being cross-examined on the same day, appropriate costs could have been awarded by the trial Court against the defendants to be paid to PW1 and further warning ought to have been given that on the next date no adjournment would be granted. Grave and irreparable prejudice is bound to be caused to the defendants in case PW1, who being the plaintiff no.1 and the main witness, is not permitted to be cross-examined by the defendants, as the oral and documentary evidence adduced by him has gone un-rebutted. It is stated in the present petition that the defendant no.1 had orally prayed for adjournment on the ground of the sickness of their advocate. It is further reported that the matter which is of the year 2011 was pending for sometime before the learned District Court. It cannot be said that the absence was with a view to delay the proceedings. 9. Considering the principles of natural justice, the impugned order which lacks any reason, is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. Inconvenience caused to the plaintiffs can be compensated by awarding appropriate costs. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed. (a) The impugned order dated 11/10/2013 of the trial court thereby closing cross-examination of PW1 by the defendants is quashed and set aside. (b) The defendants shall be given an opportunity to cross-examine PW1, subject to the defendants paying costs of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the plaintiffs. The costs shall be deposited before the trial Court, as condition precedent. (c) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. 11. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.