CRP 138/2011 BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The order under challenge is dated 1.2.2011 passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Silchar, Cachar in Title Suit No.66/1991 whereby the interim application filed by the present petitioner seeking a direction to issue summons on the learned Ad vocates as mentioned therein has been rejected. I have heard Mr N Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr SK Ghosh, Advocate and Mr GN Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the Op posite Party assisted by Ms S. Senapati, Advocate. The instant proceeding has a prolonged and chequered background which, for the instant purpose, need not be recited in details. Suffice it to mention that the present opposite party instituted Title Suit No.66/1991 in the aforeme ntioned court praying for a decree inter alia for declaration that the sale deed dated 7.8.1988 executed by one Sukesh Ranjan Dey in favour of the petitioner h erein is illegal, void, inoperative in law and is not binding on them. The peti tioner as defendant arrayed in the suit contested the same by filing his writte n statement. He contended inter alia that Sri Sukesh Ranjan Dey, Defendant No.2 therein, the husband of Juna Gupta (daughter in law of Arunendu Kishore Gupta) having inherited his share from his father in law following the death of his wif e (Juna Gupta) had executed the sale deed vis a vis the suit property and thus, the transaction was valid in law. The petitioner in addition to his written sta tement also submitted a counter claim incorporating the prayer for declaration o f his right, title and interest in the suit property and for confirmation of po ssession thereof. Though the suit was dismissed for non prosecution on 21.1.2002, the counter cla im survived for adjudication. The petitioner in support of his counter claim fil ed his affidavit evidence for himself as well as for his witness. The suit ther eafter was fixed for cross examination of the petitioner on 29.1.2010. On that day, the learned counsel for the Opposite party filed a petition disclosing that meanwhile they( Opposite party) had taken back the papers/documents/files relating to the suit to make alternative arrangemenst. The learned counsel the refore prayed that his name be deleted as the conducting counsel for the Opposi te party. The learned trial court on that date i.e. 29.1.2010 on a consideration of the p etition so filed and noticing that the Opposite party (herein) were absent, disp ensed with the cross examination of the petitioner fixing 20.3.2010 for cross e xamination of the other witness. On that date ie. 20.3.2010 though the petition er was present along with his witness, the opposite party was absent. The learn ed trial court after 1-30 p.m. noticing the developments, dispensed with the cro ss examination of other witnesses of the petitioner as well fixing 11.6.2010 for arguments. Following adjournments, the arguments in the suit got postponed til l 10.8.2010. On that date, an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure( for short, hereafter referred to as the ’Code’) was filed on behalf of the oppo site party praying for recalling of the orders dated 29.1.2010 and 20.3.2010. Th is petition having been rejected, the opposite party approached this Court with CRP No.338/2010 which was eventually disposed of on 11.10.2010 allowing the same . Consequently, the orders dated 10.8.2010, 29.1.2010 and 20.3.2010 were set as ide. This Court. following the annulment of the aforementioned orders directed the learned trial court to take up for further necessary orders the counter cla im made by the petitioner. The parties in order to expedite the proceeding were directed to appear before the learned trial court on 10.11.2010. It was thereafter that the present petitioner filed an application on 8. 11.2010 whereby the petitioner sought for an order to summon Sri BK Acharjee and Mr P.Deshmukhya, Advocates to produce the papers/documents relating to their withdrawal from the suit on 29.1.2010. A written objection was filed by the pre sent opposite party, whereafter the impugned order was passed. Whereas, Mr Choudhury has emphatically argued that the prayer made in t he interim application filed by the petitioner is of utmost significance for a n appropriate adjudication of his counter claim, Mr Sahewalla has contended that in the face of the judgment and order dated 11.10.2010 passed by this Court in CRP No.338/2010, it is not so and that the endeavour of the petitioner is to u nnecessarily protract the proceedings before this Court. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the reasons recorded in the judgment and order dated 11.10.2010 rendered by this court in CRP No.338/2010, I am inclined to sustain the objection raised on behalf of the opposite party. The prayer made in the interim application filed by the petitioner per se does not seem to have a perceptible nexus with the tenability or otherwise of his cou nter claim vis a vis the suit property. Having regard to the framework of the su it filed by the opposite party which stands dismissed for default without furthe r steps by them to revive the same as well as the background of the counter cla im laid by the petitioner, in my unhesitant opinion, rejection of the interim ap plication by the impugned order does not warrant interference. This court havin g dealt with the challenge to the orders dated 29.1.2010, 20.3.2010 and 10.8.20 10 on merits, it is considered impermissible at this stage to reopen an aspect w hich in my estimate in essence stands merged with the earlier determination of t his court. In the above view of the matter, this petition lacks in merit and is rej ected. No costs.