CRP 227/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. S S Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner/defend ant No.2. This revision is filed to challenge in substance, the order dated 7.3.2011 in Ti tle Suit No.454/06, whereby the learned Munsiff No.1, Guwahati forfeited the rig ht of the defendants, to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff. The Trial Court passed the said order as it found that the defendant was absent without s teps and on previous dates also, similar such lapses were noticed. The trend of seeking adjournments by the defendant continued and then the case was fixed for argument on 9.5.2011 and eventually, today is the date fixed for delivery of jud gment in the suit. Although the learned senior counsel has submitted that the defendant should not suffer because of the fault of the lawyer, I find that the aggrieved defendant N o.2 waited till the very last stage of the proceeding and has come to this Court just on the eve of the judgment in the suit, seeking to invoke the revisional j urisdiction of this Court. Considering the conduct of the petitioner/defendant and orders of the learned tr ial judge, I am of the considered view that intervention at this stage would cau se serious prejudice to the plaintiff, as judgment in the Title Suit is schedule d to be delivered today. Accordingly this Revision Petition is dismissed. But this will not foreclose the right of the petitioner to argue all legal grounds in the Appellate Forum, in t he event, the judgment in the suit goes against the petitioner (defendant No.2). Case is disposed of accordingly.