CRP 150/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY In challenge are the orders dated 18.12.2010 & 01.03.2011 passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Kamrup, Guwahati on two interim applications filed by the petition er in Title Suit No.897/2006, thereby rejecting the same. I have heard Mr. P.P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Ali, le arned counsel for opposite Party No.1, the contesting defendant in the suit. The pleaded case of the petitioner-plaintiff, in short, is that he is the owner in possession of the suit land, he having purchased the same from the opposite p arty No.3 by registered deed of sale. He has alleged that as the contesting defe ndant sought to interfere with his possession without any authority of law, the suit had to be filed seeking a decree, inter alia for declaration of his right, title and interest therein. In his written statement, the opposite party No.1-defendant No.1 while denying t he right, title and interest in and possession of the petitioner-plaintiff in th e suit land, in substance pleaded absence of any saleable interest in the opposi te party No.3. On 18.12.2010 the date was fixed for the submission of the affidavit evidence on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff. He did so for one such witness and prayed f or time to adduce further evidence. The learned trial court, though took the af fidavit evidence of PW-1 on record, rejected the petitioner’s-plaintiff’s prayer for further time to submit additional evidence and fixed 05.02.2011 for cross-e xamination of PW-1. On the next date, i.e. 05.02.2011, the petitioner-plaintiff filed two applications, one reiterating his prayer to adduce the evidence of tw o other witnesses and the other to introduce a document in support of his pleade d case. By the impugned order both these applications have been rejected. Mr. Das has argued that having regard to the rival pleadings, if the petitioner -plaintiff is not permitted to substantiate his pleaded case by adducing the evi dence of the other two witnesses, he will suffer irreperble loss and injury. Th e learned counsel however has submitted on instructions that the prayer for intr oduction of the document as referred to in the impugned order is not being pursu ed. Mr. Ali, in reply has argued that the petitioner-plaintiff having failed to chal lenge the order dated 18.12.2010 rejecting his prayer for adduction of further e vidence, at this distant point of time, any plea in assailment thereof ought not to be entertained in the exercise of this Court’s revisional/superintending jur isdiction. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the r ival pleadings and the other materials on record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner-plaintiff is entitled to one opportunity of adducing further evi dence, as prayed for. This is, more so as the parties are locked in a legal tus sle involving an immovable property. In the above view of the matter, this petit ion is disposed of with the following directions: (1) The learned court below would take on record the affidavit evidence of t he two witnesses of the petitioner-plaintiff, namely- Shri Narayan Das and Dwipe n Kalita. (2) The petitioner-plaintiff would not be permitted to adduce further eviden ce either oral or documentary. (3) As has been conceded before this court, the petitioner-plaintiff would not pursue his prayer for introducing the document referred to the impugned ord er i.e. Zama bandi in evidence in the suit. The learned trial court after permitting the above would continue with the suit in accordance with law. The parties would appear before the learned court on 25.11.2011 to take further order(s). The petition stands allowed in the above terms. No costs.