CRP 207/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr IA Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners, by the present petition, have challenged the order date d 17th May 2010 passed by learned Munsiff No.1, Karimganj in TS Case No.124/ 200 4, whereby and where-under the Petition No.2179 filed by the present petitioners (plaintiffs in the said suit) has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the defendant No. 1 in the written statement has admitted the execution of the sale deed in favour of the present petitioners and denied execution of any sale deed in favour of t he other defendants, he should have been summoned for examination as well as for cross-examination by the parties concerned. According to learned counsel, since such prayer has been rejected by learned Court below, the present petition is f iled. It appears from the materials made available on record that the defendan t No.1, who filed the written statement, earlier filed Petition No.2179 on 10th May 2010 to examine himself, which was rejected vide order dated 17th May 2010. Although the examination of witnesses of both the parties was over and the suit fixed for argument, the plaintiffs filed an application bearing No.2293 on 17th May 2010, after rejection of Petition No.2179 of the defendant No.1, praying for relief which was declined by learned Court below vide the aforesaid order dated 10th May 2010 to the defendant No.1. Although the defendant No.1 filed his written statement sometimes in 200 4 and the examination of witnesses of both the parties was over and the suit was fixed for argument, till such date no steps were taken by the present petitione rs to examine the defendant No.1 as his witness, whose name was also not include d in the list of witnesses. The petitioners, at the stage of argument, have come up with an applicat ion that too after rejection of Petition No.2179 filed by defendant No.1. I view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the order dated 17th May 20 10 passed by learned Munsiff No.1, Karimganj, requiring interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence this revision petition is dismissed. No costs.