CRP 430/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. A. Hai, learned counsel for the petitioner. In challenge are the orders dated 05.04.2010 & 06.07.2010 rejecting petitions in succession filed by the petitioner-plaintiff seeking the leave of the learned trial Court to re-examine one of his witnesses, namely- Tushar Kanti Ghosh (PW-6 ). The affidavit-evidence of this witness was submitted in due course and he wa s cross-examined and discharged on 17.02.2010. It was thereafter, that the peti tioner-plaintiff submitted an application before the learned trial Court registe red as (Misc. (J) Case No.28/2010) u/s.138 of the Evidence Act r/w Order XVIII R ule 17 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking leave to reexamine PW -6 and other witnesses. It was contended on his behalf that at the time of fili ng of the affidavit-evidence of PW-6, though the documents mentioned therein as exhibits had been submitted, due to bona fide mistake on the part of the conduct ing counsel, those were not proved in course of his examination as well as cros s-examination. The learned Court on the basis of the materials on record found that the affidavit-evidence of the PW-6 had been submitted on 02.09.2009 and th e Sheristadar of his establishment had endorsed on the said document that Ext. documents not submitted herewith. The learned trial Court further recorded that on 17.02.2010 when the witness was cross-examined, no document was produced. I n the above view of the matter by order dated 05.04.2010 the petition was reject ed as in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the comprehension of the le arned trial Court no intervention as sought for was warranted in the exercise of its power u/s. 151 of the CPC. Notwithstanding the above, the petitioner-plaintiff submitted another applicatio n under Order XVI Rule 1, 1(A) read with Section 151 (CPC) of the evidence Act, 1872 reiterating the same prayer. He additionally prayed to grant leave to summo n the Bench Assistant of the Court of the learned Munsiff, No.3, Dhubri as offic ial witness. The learned trial Court, not only noticed that a similar prayer vis-à-vis PW-6 h ad been rejected by its earlier order dated 05.04.2010, it also took note of the fact that the prayer for summoning the Bench Assistant as above had also been d isposed of vide order dated 15.09.2009 passed in Misc.(J) No.100/2009. Recording the reasons same as in the order dated 05.04.2010, the second petition as above was also rejected by the impugned order dated 06.07.2010. Mr. Hai has argued that having regard to the scope and ambit of the inherent pow er as contained in the 151 of the CPC, the impugned orders ought not to have bee n passed and if sustained would work serious injustice to the petitioner-plainti ff. When queried by this Court, Mr. Hai has not denied that two petitions had been f iled by the petitioner-plaintiff making the prayer for reexamination of the PW-6 who had been earlier cross-examined and discharged on 17.02.2010. On this admi ssion alone the challenge to the order dated 06.07.2010 ought to be negated. On a perusal of the order dated 05.04.2010 and having regard to the unquestion ed endorsement of the Sheristadar of the Office of the learned trial Court that the documents mentioned in the affidavit-evidence of PW-6 had not accompanied th e same at the time of its filing, no interference therewith is called for. As t he order dated 15.09.2009 passed by the learned trial Court in Misc.(J) No.100/2 009 has not been impugned, his prayer for summoning the Bench Assistant of the C ourt of the learned Munsiff No.3, Dhubri is also unsustainable. It is a trite law that the inherent power of the Court u/s.151 of the CPC, thoug h available for the ends of justice, the same ought not to be exercised in the f ace of specific provisions of the Code. In the facts and circumstanced narrated hereinabove and having regard to the reasons recorded in the impugned orders dat ed 05.04.2010 & 06.07.2010, in the opinion of this Court the same do not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record or any gross illegality justif ying its interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petit ion in the above premise, stands rejected. No costs.