CRP 388/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. UPADHYAY Heard Mr. M.H. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S. I slam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. During the course of the hearing of the Title Suit No.246/2007 pending b efore the Trial Court at Munsiff, Bilasipara, it was found that the cross-examin ation of PW-4, Sri Abdul Jalil Ahmed and the evidence on affidavit of PW-5, Lutf ur Rahman was found missing from the records. After careful perusal of the recor ds and upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, learned Court below for the ends of justice passed the impugned order dated 1.6.2010, decidin g to record of the cross-examination of PW-4 and to direct PW-5 to adduce eviden ce on affidavit afresh. As against the aforesaid order, the defendant-petitioner filed a petition for review of the order stating that un-certified copy of the evidence was available with the petitioner and that may be taken up for consider ation by the court as a cross-examination of PW-4 and the evidence on affidavit of PW-5. However, the prayer made by the petitioner was rejected by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that un-certifi ed copy of evidence of the witness may be taken up for consideration in this cas e instead of recording cross-examination of PW-4 afresh and obtaining evidence o f PW-5 on affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, has pointed out that in te rms of the provision of Order 18 Rule 17, the trial Court has ample power at any stage of the proceeding, to recall the witness, who has been examined and may p ut such question as to the court may deem fit and proper. In any view of the matter, the order directing recording of the cross-examinatio n of PW-4 afresh and to record the evidence on affidavit of PW-5, appears to hav e been passed by the trial Court for the ends of justice in order to advance the cause of justice and obviously not to hinder it. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Court below warra nting interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the C onstitution. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed. Interim order, if any passed in this case stands vacated.