CRP 264/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P K MUSAHARY Heard Ms.A.Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G N Sahewel la, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff assisted by Mrs. J Bora, learned counsel. This application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India r ead with Section 115 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order d ated 16.5.2011 and 24.5.2011 passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Dibrugarh in TS No.69 of 2007. The present petitioner is the defendant in the aforesaid Title Suit. The present respondent No.1 being the plaintiff in the suit adduced evidence. The plainti ff has examined PW-1 and the said PW-1 is required to be cross-examined by the d efendants. It is an admitted position that the PW-1 has been cross-examined on l ast four dates and it is yet to be completed. The defendants once applied for ad journment for cross-examinations of the P.W.1 on the ground that his engaged co unsel was proceeding to Delhi for treatment. The prayer was granted. Again on t he next date i.e. 16.5.2011 when the matter was fixed for further cross-examinat ion (evidence) the defendant again filed an application for adjournment of the proceeding i.e. cross examination of PW-1 on the ground that his lawyer was not feeling well and he was not in a position to conduct the case. The said prayer w as allowed subject to payment of costs of ‘300/-. The defendants refused to pay the cost and approached this court against the order dated 16.5.2011 with a pray er for allowing them to further cross-examine and also with a prayer for allowi ng the defendants to put relevant questions on the point of default in paying th e house rent. Mr. G N Sahewella, learned senior counsel objected to the admissibility of this petition inasmuch as it has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution w hereunder there is no scope for interference of the order passed by the trial co urt. I find no irregularity or illegality in imposing cost of ‘300/- while allowing t he defendants to cross-examine P.W.1 on the date fixed. Regarding the prayer for allowing the defendants to put relevant question on the point of default, it is not possible to make any observation by this court as to what sort of question should be put to the witness during cross-examination to extract the relevant an swers from the mouth of the witness. It is for the trial court to decide whether the counsel cross-examining the witness is putting the relevant question connec ted with the issues involved. It can be decided only by the trial court after a ppreciating the question put by the cross-examiner. The petition is allowed to c ross examine P.W.1 putting relevant questions related to the issue on payment of the cost imposed by the court below. It is made clear that no further adjournment will be allowed for cross-examina tion of P.W.1 and defendants should complete cross-examination on the next date fixed. Parties shall appear on 20.8.2011 before the trial court. This applicatio n stands allowed to the extent indicated above.