CRP 386/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.NK SINGH Heard Mr.C. Baruah, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. T. Baruah, learn ed counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant and Mr. KN Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr.J. Patowary, learned counsel appearing for the respon dent-plaintiff. [2] Sans unnecessary details, facts which would be sufficient for de ciding the present revision petition is recapitulated; the respondent-plaintiff is the owner of the disputed premises for which the petitioner-defendant is the tenant of the respondent-plaintiff. [3] A suit for eviction, which was registered as T.S. No.9 of 2000, was filed about more than a decade ago in the Court of the learned Civil Judge ( Jr. Division) Dibrugarh, but for certain reasons unfortunately said TS No.9/200 0 is still at the stage of examination of PWs. [4] It is the submission of Mr. KN Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel fo r the respondent-plaintiff that proceedings of the suit for eviction, i.e. T.S. No.9/2000 is delayed because of different tactics adopted by the petitioner-defe ndant. This fact is seriously controverted by Mr. C. Baruah, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant. But, it is the fact that the suit for e viction, filed about 11 years ago is still pending at the stage of examination o f PWs. [5] Examination in-chief of the PW 1 was concluded on 3.4.07 and the defendant, who was the predecessor in-interest of the present petitioner-defend ant, was given chance to cross examine the PW 1. While the said suit was at the stage of cross-examination of PW 1, the defendant died and his L.R, i.e. the pre sent petitioner, was brought on record vide order of the learned Trial Court dat ed 29.3.2008. [6] After the present petitioner-defendant had been brought on recor d as the L.R. of the original defendant, it appears that an application had been filed for rejecting the T.S.No.9/2000 on certain grounds, one of which was that there was no cause of action. The said application was rejected by the learned trial Court; against that rejection order, revision petition No.335/07 was filed before this Court. This Court by an order dated 26.9.07 rejected the said Revis ion Petition, i.e. CRP No.335/07. [7] After substitution of the original defendant by the present peti tioner-defendant, an application was filed before the trial court for allowing t o file additional written statement. The trial Court by an order dated 21.2.09 r ejected the said application filed by the petitioner-defendant for allowing to f ile additional written statement. [8] After rejection of the said application filed by the present pet itioner-defendant vide an order dated 21.2.09 learned Trial Court fixed the case for cross examination of the PW 1 on 5.5.99. On that day, i.e. 5.5.99 the peti tioner-defendant by filing Petition No. 1437 of 2009 prayed for deferring cross examination of the PW 1 in view of the contemplated Revision Petition before thi s Court against the order dated 21.2.09 passed by the learned trial Court. [9] The learned trial Court, in spite of objection from the side of the respondent -plaintiff, prayer made by the petitioner-defendant had been all owed vide order dated 5.5.09 and fixed the case on 4.6.09 for further proceeding . Again on 4.6.09 the petitioner-defendant filed another application to defer cr oss examination of the PW1 for the same reason that the petitioner-defendant is filing revision petition against the order of the trial court dated 21.2.09 in t his Court inasmuch as the statutory period for filing revision petition before t his Court had not been expired. [10] The trial court was of the view that cross- examination of the PW1 cannot be deferred for an unlimited period for the reason that the petition er-defendant had the intention to file revision petition ; and accordingly passe d the order dated 4.6.09 for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner-defendant fo r deferring cross-examination of the PW1. [11] Petitioner-defendant had filed the Revision Petition No.189 of 2 009 against the order of the learned trial court dated 21.2.09 wherein and where under the learned trial Court had rejected the prayer of the petitioner-defendan t for allowing to produce additional written statement. It is clear from the admitted fact that when the Revision Petiti on No.189 of 2009 was filed before this Court, order of the learned Trial Court dated 4.6.09 for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner-defendant for deferring cross-examination of PW1 was already in existence. [12] It is the submission of Mr. KN Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the respondent-plaintiff that the petitioner-defendant would have assailed the order of the trial Court dated 4.6.09 when filing the revision petition No.1 89 of 2009 assailing only the order of the learned trial court dated 21.2.09. [13] This Court had allowed the revision petition No.189 of 2009 by p assing judgment and order dated 16.9.09 wherein and whereunder the petitioner-de fendant was allowed to file additional written statement. This Court, in the sai d judgment and order dated 16.9.09 also made observation that additional issues may be framed by the trial Court taking into consideration of the additional ple a taken by the petitioner-defendant in the additional written statement; accordi ngly trial Court framed three additional issues. [14] Petitioner-defendant again approached the trial court by filing petition No. 1245 of 2002 for allowing to cross examine PW1 by setting aside the order dated 4.6.09 passed by the trial court. The learned trial court vide impu gned judgment and order dated 7.8.10 had rejected the said petition No.1245 of 2 002 filed by the petitioner-defendant with a rider that the petitioner-defendant will be given chance to cross examine the PWs when the plaintiff examined the P Ws in support of the newly framed issues. [15] On perusal of the impugned order dated 7.8.09, it is crystal cle ar that petitioner-defendant will have the chance to cross examine witnesses of the respondent-plaintiff at the time of producing the witnesses in support of th eir case in respect of the three newly framed issues. Such being the situation, no prejudice shall cause to the petitioner-defendant in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner-defendant to relegate the proceeding of the TS No. 9 of 2009 at t he stage of cross examination of the PW1 as on 4.6.09. Over and above, it appear s that the petitioner-defendant is barred by the principles of waiver and acquis cence in questioning the validity or otherwise of the order of the trial court d ated 4.6.09 inasmuch as he did not file revision petition against the order of t he trial court dated 4.6.09 even he had the opportunity to file Revision Petitio n. Further, it is clear from the facts that Revision Petition No.189 of 2009 was filed after the trial court passed the said order dated 4.6.09. [16] For the foregoing reasons, no interference to the impugned ju dgment and order of the learned trial Court dated 7.8.10 passed by the Munsiff N o.1, Dibrugarh in TS No. 13/08 is called for. However, it is made clear that the petitioner-defendant shall be given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses (PWs) of the respondent-plaintiff at the time of producing witnesses (PWs) in su pport of their case in respect of the three newly framed issues. But, taking int o consideration of the long pendency of the TS No.9/09 corresponding to TS No.13 /08, this Court is compelled to make some direction in the interest of the justi ce. [17] Accordingly, the learned trial Court is directed to decide the s aid TS No.9/09 corresponding to TS No.13/08 as expeditiously as possible, prefer ably within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order .