ORDER:- The facts giving rise to this revision lie within a narrow compass. A suit for malicious prosecution was filed by the petitioner which came to be fixed for hearing on 16-7-1979. On that day the plaintiff was present with six witnesses and he filed a petition to fix another date to record evidence of two witnesses mentioned in the petition. This prayer was rejected as would appear from the endorsement of the learned trial Court on the body of the petition itself. This has led the plaintiff to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

2. Shri Sarma has urged that though a matter relating to granting an adjournment is within the discretion of Court, the same has to be exercised judicially and by taking into consideration all relevant materials. In the present case his submission is that the learned trial Court disposed of the petition for adjournment by one word rejected passed on the body of the petition and such a disposal cannot be regarded in accordance with law and it is a fit case where to set at naught the illegal exercise of jurisdiction of the learned trial Court, the impugned order should be quashed. It is urged that for one of the witnesses who was a