CRP 280/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr MH Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner and Mr MJ Qadir, learned counsel for both the respondents. The plaintiff/petitioner, by the present petition, has challenged the or der dated 20th May 2009 passed by learned Munsiff No.1, Karimganj in Title Suit No.206/2007 rejecting the petition No.901/41 filed by him praying for recalling the order dated 6th December 2008 and for allowing him to produce PWs for cross- examination by defendants. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, although on 6th Decembe r 2008, i.e. the date for production of PW3 for cross-examination by the defenda nts, he informed his counsel about the fact that his daughter met with an accide nt and hospitalized, learned counsel filed an application on that day stating th at the plaintiff could not appear because of his illness, which is not correct a nd consequently rejected the said application thereby closing examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, which has the effect of expunging the examination-in-chi ef of PW3. Learned counsel submits that, thereafter, on 19th December 2008, the plaintiff filed an application for recalling the order dated 6th December 2008 s tating the true facts, and for allowing him to produce PW3 for cross-examination by the defendants and, though on 22nd April 2008 the relevant medical papers re lating to the hospitalization of his daughter was filed before learned Court bel ow, it vide order dated 20th May 2009 rejected the said petition, even without c onsidering those documents submitted by him on 22nd April 2008. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the orders dated 20th May 2009 and 6th December 2008 pa ssed by learned Court below be set aside by allowing the petitioner to produce P W3 for cross-examination by defendants, for ends of justice. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supporting the o rder passed by learned Court below, submits that there were two versions of the petitioner for his absence on 6th December 2008, that is, in the petition filed on 6th December 2008, it was stated that he could not appear due to his illness while in petition No.901/41, it was stated that he could not appear on 6th Decem ber 2008 due to illness of his daughter. It is not discernible which fact is the correct one, and hence the learned Court below had rightly passed the impugned orders, more so when along with petition No.901/41 medical papers were not filed . It appears from the order dated 6th December 2008 that when case was fix ed for further cross-examination of PWs, an application was filed (Petition No.6 61/21) praying for adjournment due to the illness of the petitioner by the advoc ate of the petitioner without any signature and verification by the present peti tioner. That application was rejected by learned Munsiff on ground of non-produc tion of supporting medical certificates. Consequently, the evidence of PWs was c losed and case was fixed on 19th December 2008 for examination of DWs, when an a pplication supported by an affidavit was filed by the petitioner contending that in fact on 6th December 2008, he could not appear in Court and hence could not produce any witnesses for cross-examination by the defendants as his daughter me t with an accident, for which she had to be admitted in a hospital. On 19th Dece mber 2009, the examination-in-chief in the form of an affidavit on behalf of the defendant No.1 was also filed. Although along with the application dated 19th December 2008 (Petition N o.901/41) the medical papers supporting the contention of hospitalization of the petitioner’s daughter were not filed, such documents 8 in numbers, however, wer e filed by a separate firisti on 22nd February 2008 after serving copies on lear ned counsel for the defendants. Learned Court below rejected the petition No.901/41 by the order dated 2 0th May 2009, basically on the ground that on earlier occasion i.e. on 6th Decem ber 2008 in Petition No.661/21, it was contended that the plaintiff was sufferin g from illness and, in subsequent petition dated 19th December 2009, it was cont ended that his daughter met with an accident, for which she had to be hospitaliz ed. As noticed above, petition No.661/21 was singed by an advocate, and not by t he plaintiff. Petition dated 19th December 2008 was supported by an affidavit. T he petitioner also filed the medical papers on 22nd April 2008 in support of his contention that his daughter was hospitalized at the relevant point of time. Le arned Munsiff passed the order dated 20th May 2009, even without considering tho se documents filed in support of the contention of the petitioner in petition No .901/41. From perusal of the medical papers, which are available on record of TS No.206/2007, it reveals that the petitioner’s daughter was hospitalized on 4th D ecember 2008 and continued to be so at different hospitals, at least up-to 29th December 2008. That being the position, there was sufficient ground for not appe aring in court on 6th December 2008, when TS No.206/2007 was taken up for hearin g. In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 6th December 2008 and 20 th May 2009 are set aside. The plaintiff/petitioner shall, on 18th November 2010 , produce his witness for cross-examination by the defendants. The revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs . Registry is directed to send back the records forthwith, so that it reac hes the learned court below on or before 1st November 2010. .