CRP 331/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr G.N.Sahewalla learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. The jurisdiction of the court under Article 227 of the Constitut ion of India is sought to be invoked to annul the order dated 19. 7.10 rejectin g the petitioner’s application for review of the order dated 6.7.10. After the closure of the examination of the witnesses of the opp osite party/plaintiffs , the suit was fixed for recording of evidence of the pe titioner-defendant. He filed affidavit evidence of Sri Jayanta Baruah on 16.6.10 . On his prayer the learned court below allowed him to take fresh steps within 7 days for service of summons on the other witness Sri Tridib Baidya. Admitted ly the petitioner-defendant did not take steps within the time allowed. On the next date i.e 6.7.10 as this witness was absent, the l earned court below noticing the delay on his part (petitioner-defendant) to take steps in this regard declined to permit him (petitioner-defendant) to examine f urther witnesses and fixed 19.7.10 for the cross examination of his first witnes s, Sri Jayanta Baruah. On the next date 19.7.10 his witness Jayanta Baruah wa s absent. However, while disclosing the reasons for his absence, the petitione r-defendant filed a separate application, namely Misc (J) Case No. 41/10 (T.S. N o. 70/2007) and sought for review of the order dated 6.7.10 to allow him to ex amine his second witness, Sri Tridib Baidya. The said petition has been rejected by the order impugned. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has persuasively a rgued that as the petitioner-defendant was unavoidably busy attending on his a iling grandmother in law, he could not take steps for service of summons on th e second witness within the time fixed and therefore, if the impugned order is allowed to stand it would be great injustice. The impugned order disclose that t he petitioner’s prayer for review was rejected on the ground that - even assuming that the petitioner-defendant was busy with the treatment of his grandmother in law, his engaged counsel could have taken steps in terms of the order of this court, more particularly when they aware of the implication thereo f and thus the cause shown by the petitioner-defendant for his inability to take steps was un acceptable. Upon hearing the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner-defen dant and on a consideration of the pleaded facts and the orders referred to here in above, I do not consider it fit and proper in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere . The reasons cited by the learne d court below cannot be discarded as illogical and irrelevant. Having regard to the relevant provisions of the CPC, designed f or expeditious disposal of suits it is not a fit case for exercise of the supe rintending jurisdiction of this Court under the above constitutional provision. The petition is rejected. No costs.