CRP 80/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The superintending jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitut ion of India is sought to be invoked to set at naught the orders dated 26.08.201 0 and 15.09.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sivasagar in T.S. No. 39/200 8. I have heard Mr. A Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ikbal, lea rned counsel for the opposite party. The opposite party had instituted TS No.39/2008 in the aforementioned court pray ing for a decree, inter alia, for declaration of her right, title and interest i n the suit property as described therein. On receiving the summons in the suit, the petitioners who were arrayed as defendant therein, entered appearance and fi led their written statement. The suit was, thereafter, adjourned from time to ti me for the preparatory steps. On 26.07.2010, the learned counsel for the petitio ners filed a petition alongwith a copy of the letter dated 10.07.2010 addressed by him to the petitioner No. 1, expressing his disinclination to further appear on their behalf. Though, the postal receipt accompanying this letter was filed a longwith the petition, the learned court below fixed 26.08.2010 for furnishing t he receipted A/D card. On that date i.e. 26.08.2010, the petitioners filed a pet ition in the suit seeking adjournment so as to enable them to appoint a new Advo cate on their behalf. The petition was rejected by the learned trial Court and t he suit was fixed on 15.09.2010 for ex-parte hearing. On 15.09.2010, the petitio ners filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 9, 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short hereafter referred to as the Code) read with section 151 thereof to set as ide the order dated 26.08.2010 passed in the suit as well as in Misc. (J) Case N o. 55/2008 and Misc. (J) Case No.56/2008 arising therefrom. As the learned trial court rejected the said petition by the order dated 15.09.2010 the petitioners are before this Court seeking redress. Whereas, Mr. Ahmed, has argued that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners cannot be penalized for the default of their Advocate, the learn ed counsel for the opposite party has resisted the challenge. The available materials on record and the arguments have been duly considered. A plain reading of the letter dated 10.07.2010 of the learned counsel for the pet itioners (Annexure 2 to the revision petition) prima facie, reveals that he (the learned counsel) was disinterested to represent them for their persistent failu re to maintain contact with him and furnish necessary instructions from time to time, which made it difficult for him to conduct the suit. That this letter was received by the petitioners is borne out by their step taken on 26.08.2010 seeki ng adjournment in the suit so as to make alternative arrangements for their repr esentation therein. The order passed on that date, reveals that the petition so filed was dismissed as the petitioners were found absent on repeated calls and t he same was also not pressed. It is, in this premise that the suit was fixed for ex-parte having on 15.09.2010. Though, on that date, a petition under Order 9 R ule 9, 13 of the Code had been filed, it also was not pressed either by the peti tioners or by their newly engaged counsel. This order further demonstrates that the petitioners were found absent in Court on repeated calls and that the same w as passed past 4.00 p.m. The instant petition before this Court does not disclose any reason whatsoever f or the defaults on the part of the petitioners and on their Advocate on 26.08.20 10 and 15.09.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner on repeated queries of this Court also could not state any. There is, therefore, nothing overwhelming on records to even infer incorrectness of the reasons cited in these orders in s upport thereof. The statements of fact recorded by a Court of law in its order h ave to be ascribed due sanctity, unless unerringly established to be incorrect a nd not borne out by the records. The petitioners herein have failed to discharge their burden. The letter dated 10.07.2010, the orders dated 26.08.2010 and 15.0 9.2010 evince a chronic casualness in the approach of the petitioner in the matt er of their representation/participation in the suit. In the exercise of the sup erintending jurisdiction of this Court, which even otherwise is to be sparingly used, no interference with the impugned order is thus warranted. The petition la cks in merit and is thus dismissed. No costs.