CRP 340/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI This is an application, made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aga inst the order, dated 06-08-2011, passed, in Title Suit No. 166 of 2009, by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati, rejecting the petition of the defendant No. 1 for recalling the witness Nos. 1 and 2 for cross-examination. Heard Mr. PK Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. While considering the impugned order, it needs to be noted that the suit was fix ed by an order, dated 18-03-2011, for hearing, on 29-04-2011. On the date, so fi xed, the plaintiff was present with three witnesses. Out of these three witnesse s, as far as PW1 and PW2 are concerned, their examination-in-chief, on affidavit , had already been placed on record. These two witnesses were, therefore, requir ed to be cross-examined by the defendants on 29-04-2011. Besides the said two wi tnesses, the plaintiff had also obtained the presence of an official of the Gauh ati Medical Development Authority to examine him as a witness. Not only the defe ndant-petitioner, but even his learned counsel was absent on 29-04-2011. Following the fact that none had appeared on behalf of the defendant-petitioner, the learned Court below closed, on 29-04-2011, the cross-examination of the pla intiff’s witnesses by the defendants and also fixed the case for argument. Aggrieved by the order passed, on 29-04-2011, fixing the suit for argument, a pe tition was filed by the defendants stating to the effect, inter alia, that the d efendants and their appointed counsel could not appear, on 29-04-2011, as they w ere out of station and though an instruction had been given to one Paresh Das, A dvocate, to take steps on behalf of the defendants, the said advocate did not ta ke step with the result the defendants remained unrepresented and the order, dat ed 29-04-2011, fixing the case for argument, was passed. The defendant No. 1, th erefore, prayed for vacating the order, dated 29-04-2011, whereby the suit was f ixed for argument, and to allow the defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff. By its order, dated 06-08-2011, while rejecting the defendant No. 1’s above peti tion, the learned trial Court pointed out that 29-04-2011 was fixed as far back as on 18-03-2011 and, thus, the defendant No. 1 and his appointed counsel knew, more than a month ago, that the suit would come up for hearing on 29-04-2011, bu t neither the defendant No. 1 nor his appointed counsel appeared on 29-04-2011 a nd their petition does not even disclose as to where they had gone and why they had gone, nor does the petitioner clearly indicate that the reasons for the abse nce were sudden and unavoidable. This apart, as pointed out by the learned trial Court, there was no affidavit or any material filed to show that the said Pares h Das was instructed to take steps on behalf of the defendant No. 1 on the date fixed, i.e. 29-04-2011 and, hence, the learned trial Court concludes that the pe tition, in question, did not disclose the nature of business, which had prompted the defendant No. 1 and his appointed counsel to be absent on the date so fixed , no case for recalling the order, dated 29-04-2011, was made out. In such circu mstances, the learned trial Court has rejected the prayer for giving opportunity to the defendant No. 1 to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff. The ord er, so made by the learned trial Court, is not an order without jurisdiction. Th e order is also not such an order, which can be described as an irrational order . Even if there were two views possible, this Court cannot invoke its jurisdicti on under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, when the view, taken by the l earned trial Court is not wholly irrational, and arbitrary. Because of what have been pointed out above, this Court does not find that the p etitioner has been able to make out any case warranting this Court’s interferenc e, in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with the order, dated 29-04-2011, which stands impugned in this revision. In fact, t he order cannot be confidently said to be erroneous. Even if there were two view s possible in a given situation, which might have arisen in a trial Court, the H igh Court would not substitute its view by invoking Article 227 in place of the views of the trial Court. This revision is, therefore, not admitted and shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs. Before parting with this revision, it is, however, made clear that the observati ons made above by this Court and the decisions not to interfere with the impugne d order, dated 29-04-2011, have been passed in the light of the scope of Article 227 and would, therefore, remain open for challenge by the defendant No. 1 if t he suit happens to be decided in favour of the defendant and an appeal is prefer red by the petitioner.