CRP 325/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BD AGARWAL Heard Mr. R. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant challenging the impugned order dated 3. 6.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.1, Guwahati in Money Suit No. 95/05 closing the cross-examination of PW 1. Keeping in mind the short prayer of the petitioner, this revisio n application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. Mr. Hussain submitted that on 3.6.2011, the lawyer of the defen dant did not appear in the court to cross-examine PW 1 and as such the defenda nt should not suffer for the inaction of his lawyer. Besides this, Mr. Hussain has drawn my attention to various orders from the trial court wherefrom it is ga thered that on various occasions even the plaintiff had also taken adjournments. In the order dated 2.6.2008, it has been observed that the plaintiff had also t aken five adjournments for producing PW 1 for cross-examination and other witne sses. At the same time, the defendant’s conduct was also not good. He had absented fr om the proceedings on few occasions and had been taking adjournments for cross-e xamination since last more than two years. Considering all the aspects and in the interest of justice a las t chance is given to the defendant to cross-examine PW 1. Mr. Hussain informed t he court that the suit has been fixed on 25.10.2011 and on that day if PW 1 app ears in the court for cross-examination, the defendant may be allowed to cross-e xamine the said witness. Since the order has been passed ex-parte, the petitioner is dire cted to obtain a certified copy of this order and send the same to the plaintif f so that he may produce PW 1 in the court in the next date for cross-examinatio n. It is further made clear that cross-examination shall be allowed subject to p ayment of Rs. ‘ 10,000/- to the plaintiff on 25.10.11 by the defendant. If the d efendant fails to pay the cost, the trial court shall not be obliged to allow cr oss-examination of the witness in the proceeding. With the aforesaid observations, this revision petition stands d isposed of.