CRP 119/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr KR Surana, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the opposite party. The opposite parties have remained unrepresented earlier also. This Cour t, therefore, is not inclined to adjourn this matter. The superintending jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the C onstitution of India has been sought to be invoked to interfere with the order d ated 30.4.2010 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Dhubri in T.S. No. 53/2008 fo rfeiting the right of the petitioner/ defendant to cross-examine two witnesses o f the opposite party offered in the aforementioned Title Suit. According to the petitioner, after the completion of the pleadings and the framing of the issues , the opposite party/ plaintiff adduced evidence of three witnesses by affidavit . Cross-examination of P.W.1 was done on 10.2.2009 and the said witness was dis charged thereafter. On the succeeding dates i.e. 1.4.2009, 16.6.2009 and 12.3.20 10 cross-examination of the remaining two witnesses of the opposite party/ plain tiff could not be effected as adjournment of the hearing was prayed for on behal f of the petitioner/ defendant. Eventually, by the impugned order dated 30.4.201 0, the evidence of the side of the opposite party/ plaintiff was closed by forfe iting the right of the petitioner/ defendant to cross-examine them. Mr Surana has contended that the petitioner is a cultivator and is, thus , unaware of the implications and intricacies of law and if the impugned order i s allowed to stand, the petitioner/ defendant would suffer irreparable loss and injury for no fault of his. Mr Surana has urged that the adjournment had to be p rayed for on the aforementioned three dates under compelling circumstances and a s the learned Court below had granted the same, the impugned order, in the inter est of justice, ought not to have been passed. On instructions Mr Surana has und ertaken that if one opportunity is granted to the petitioner he would ensure tha t the cross-examination of the remaining two witnesses of the opposite party/ pl aintiff is completed. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a considerati on of the pleaded facts as well as the documents annexed to the petition, this C ourt is of the view that in the interest of justice the prayer as made in the in stant petition ought to be allowed. The orders dated 1.4.2009, 16.6.2009 and 12. 3.2010 per se do not indicate any deliberate inaction or laches on the part of t he petitioner. The impugned order in this premise, if not interfered with, would deny him a fair trial. In the above view of the matter, the order dated 30.4.2010 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Dhubri in T.S. No. 53/2008 is set aside. The petitioner w ould appear before the learned Court below on 26.9.2011 whereupon necessary noti ce would be issued to the opposite party for proceeding with the suit. The petition is allowed. The interim order dated 8.4.2011 staying further proceedings in T.S. No. 53/2008 pending in the Court of the learned Munsiff No.1, Dhubri stands vacated . No costs.