CRP 291/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr . G.N. Sahewalla, the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondent. The respondent instituted Title Suit No.647/2006 (earlier number being T S No.27/2003) in the Court of the learned Munsiff No.1, Silchar against the pres ent petitioner as principal defendant and 13 others as proforma defendants prayi ng for a decree declaring the Sale Deed dated 24.06.2002 executed and registered in favour of the present petitioner by the proforma defendant Nos.11 to 14 as f raudulent, illegal, void, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiffs (the p laintiff No.2 in the meantime has expired during pendency of the suit); for decl aring that the principal defendant (petitioner herein) and the proforma defendan ts are tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the property described in Schedu le-1 thereto and also for permanent injunction. The said suit is contested by th e present petitioner (principal defendant No.1) by filing written statement. The plaintiff (respondent herein) thereafter filed the evidence on affid avit of the plaintiff No.1 as PW-1, on 24.09.2007. Thereafter on 14.02.2008 he p resented himself for cross-examination by the defendant, on which date the defen dant filed an application contending that the PW-1 cannot be cross-examined unle ss examination-in-chief of all the plaintiff’s witnesses are filed. The learned Court below vide order dated 14.02.2008 has directed the plaintiff to submit evi dences on affidavit of all his witnesses, if any, on the next date fixed, fixing 28.03.2008 for that purpose as well as for cross-examination of the PWs. On 28. 03.2008 though the PW-1 was present for cross-examination by the defendant, the learned counsel for the defendant did not turn up to cross-examine the said witn ess. No evidence on affidavit of any other witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff however has been filed. The case was thus fixed on 17.05.2008 for cross-examinat ion of the PW-1, on which date also the defendant (present petitioner) filed ano ther application praying for adjournment on the ground that unless the evidence on affidavit of all the plaintiff’s witnesses are filed it is not possible to cr oss-examine the PW-1. Such prayer has been rejected by the learned Trial Court o bserving that court cannot compel a party to adduce any further evidence. The le arned Court below, therefore, close the plaintiff’s evidence and fixed 03.07.200 8 for defendant’s witness. The case was however refixed on 09.09.2008 as on 03.0 7.2008 the court could not function due to strike. On 09.09.2008 the defendant h as filed an application seeking time for filing the evidence on affidavit of his witnesses. Prayer was granted fixing 03.12.2008. In the meantime on 22.09.2008 an application has been filed by the defendant for allowing him to cross-examine the PW-1 before filing the examination-in-chief of the defendant’s witness by m odifying the order dated 17.05.2008, which however has been rejected by the lear ned Court below vide order dated 18.06.2009. It appears that the proceeding in the suit has been delayed at the insta nce of the defendant. It is the defendant, who time and again taking time to cro ss-examine the plaintiff’s witness though the PW-1 was present before the Court for cross-examination on a number of occasions. However, since the suit is for d eclaration of the registered deed of sale, executed in favour of the present def endant, as void, inoperative and illegal, I deem it fit to grant a further oppor tunity to the defendant to cross-examine the PW-1. No further opportunity howeve r shall be granted to the defendant, if he fails to cross-examine the said witne ss, if produced on the next date fixed. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to all ow the present petitioner/ defendant one more opportunity to cross-examine the P W-1 on the date when PW-1 makes himself available for cross-examination, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- by the defendant to the plaintiff as cost, which shal l be deposited before the learned Court below on or before the next date fixed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 20.10.2009, on which date, in the event of depositing such cost, the defendant shall be all owed to cross-examine the PW-1 who shall make himself available for cross-examin ation on that date. The petition is accordingly disposed of.