A.C. Upadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. DK Biswas, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, and Mr. AK Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Paul, learned Counsel for the Respondent.

2. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties, this revision petition has been taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself.

3. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have challenged the order dated 04.06.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kailashahar, in MS No. 04 of 2009, whereby the learned Court below, while allowing the prayer for adjournment sought for by the Defendants-Petitioners, imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- for adjournment, payable to the Plaintiff-Respondent.

4. The pleaded case of the Petitioners is that the Respondent herein as Plaintiff filed a suit for damages, claiming `. 5,000/- from the Defendants (herein the Petitioners), alleging defamation for requiring information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 about his nationality.

5. The proceeding of the suit started with framing of issues but no date was fixed for submitting the list of witnesses. Date was fixed for evidence (for submission of examination-in-chief), and on two successive dates, the Plaintiff-Respondent took adjournments. Subsequently, on 05.02.2011, the Plaintiff Respondent submitted the examination-in-chief of PW.1 and prayed for fixing another date for production of other witnesses. On the next date fixed i.e. on 17.03.2011, prayer was made by both the parties for adjournment, which was granted and next date was fixed on 04.04.2011 for filing of further examination-in-chief on behalf of the Plaintiff-Respondent. But on the next date also the Plaintiff-Respondent was absent and as a result filing of further examination-in-chief did not come forth.

6. However, on 16.05.2011 the Plaintiff-Respondent appeared with his witnesses and submitted the examination-in-chief of all the six witnesses.

7. Learned Counsel for the Defendants-Petitioners, who was called up to cross-examine instantly after receiving the copies of the affidavits, declined to cross-examine in that haste, and as such, learned Court granted adjournment and next date was fixed on 04.06.2011 for cross-examination of the witnesses of the Plaintiff-Respondent.

8. It has been submitted on behalf of the Defendants Petitioners that learned Counsel for the Defendants-Petitioners, as he was to take some treatment outside the station, submitted an application well ahead with a copy served on the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Respondent and prayed for adjournment as he would not be able to be present on the next date fixed (04.06.2011).

9. However, on 04.06.2011, when the case was taken up, learned Counsel for the Defendants-Petitioners was not present in the Court and accordingly, the impugned order was passed by the learned Court below, which reads as follows:

4-6-2011

Ld. counsel for Plaintiff is present alongwith two witnesses out of which one is Plaintiff.

Ld. counsel for the Defendants filed an adjournment petition dated 4-6-2011 on the ground stated herein.

It is pertinent to mention here that on 4-6-2011, Ld. counsel for the Defendants filed the present petition for adjournment was instructed verbally to inform the Plaintiff or his Ld. counsel in well-advance about his adjournment petition so that Plaintiff side would avoid unnecessary expenditure by producing witnesses.

Ld. counsel for the Plaintiff verbally submitted that he was informed only yesterday in the afternoon about the adjournment petition filed by the Defendants. He has also submitted that one of the present witness has come from Delhi just to appear and depose in this case and for which he has incurred huge expenditure. He has also submitted that had the Ld. counsel for Defendants informed him in well-ahead then the witness from Delhi would have not come by incurring huge expenditure like for Air ticket etc.

The court has remembere