CRP 121/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. SARMA Heard Mr. B.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also hea rd Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Senapati appear ing on behalf of the respondents. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is prayed to be exercised cha llenging the orders dated 28-10-09 and 29-1-2010 passed by the learned Munsif No . 1 Silchar, in Title Suit No. 729/06 thereby rejecting the prayer of the petiti oner for allowing to examine the official witnesses and calling of the original documents as exhibited. The petitioner instituted the aforesaid Title Suit in the court of the C ivil Judge Sr. Div. No. 1, Cachar, Silchar, praying for declaration of right, ti tle and interest over the schedule land, for confirmation of possession and for declaration that the defendant Nos. 1 to 8 have no right, title or possession be yond 4 katha, 14 chataks of land in dag No. 6692 of 2nd R.S. patta No. 933 of Mo uza - Silchar town and inclusion of schedule land in dag No. 6692 in agreement dated 25.9.2000 executed by defdt. Nos. 1 to 8 in favour of defdt. No. 9 is ille gal and did not convey any right or authority in favour of the defdt. No. 9 in r espect of schedule land and subsequent sale of room by defdt. No. 9 within the b uilding raised on dag No. 6692 did in no way attract the schedule land or any pa rt thereof. The plaintiffs also prayed for permanent injunction and since the suit was not c ontested by the defendant Nos. 1 to 8 the order passed against them was ex-parte . The suit was only contested by the defendant Nos. 9 and 10. The suit was fixed for hearing and argument on 28-10-2009, on which date the plaint iffs were to adduce further evidence in the suit. On that date the attorney of t he plaintiffs filed an application praying for adjournment of the suit on the gr ound that he has decided not to contest the suit. The learned trial court not ha ving satisfied about existence of sufficient cause rejected the said prayer for adjournment. The learned trial court also observed that the applicant was not a party to the suit but only the attorney of the plaintiffs. The defendants also declined to adduce any evidence and the suit was fixed for argument and hearing on 29-1-2010. On 29-1-2010 the plaintiffs filed another application for allowing them opportunity to adduce further evidence in the suit. It is to be noted her ein that in the meantime the plaintiffs prayed for examination of his attorney a s PW 1. The aforesaid prayer of the plaintiffs was objected by the defendants a nd the learned trial court after discussion of the chronological events in the s uit, granted time to the plaintiffs for producing the witnesses and accordingly rejected their prayer and fixed the suit for argument on 26-2-2010. Challenging the aforesaid order Mr. Purkaystha submits that in fact the Attorney of the plaintiffs appears to be negligent in contesting the suit and ac cordingly both chances as last chance was granted to the plaintiffs for adducing evidence. Mr. Sahewalla, learned Sr. counsel however objected the aforesaid prayer and submits that the plaintiffs were provided with ample opportunities to adduc e evidence beyond three dates as required under Order 17, Rule 1 of the CPC and in respect of the same plaintiffs did not produce such witnesses except PW 1. From the materials available on record itself disclose that on the following dat es the suit was fixed as follows - 14.3.2005 - Chief of P.W. 1( Amalendu Guha : Plaintiffs Attorney) 27.4.2005 - Fixed for cross examination adjournment by defendant. 22.6.2005 to 13.3.2006 -Pending for 2 petitions. Suit transferred from Civil Judge, Senior Division to Munsiff No. 1, Cachar. 28.1.2008 - 2 petitions finally disposed. 7.3.2008 - Cross of P.W. - 1 (Amalendu Guha) 16.5.2008 - Plaintiff takes adjournment 23.9.2008 - Plaintiff takes adjournment 18.3.2008 - P.W. 1 cross-examined, plaintiffs filed petition for further evidence. Allowed. Plaintiff to take steps. 4.5.2009 } 2.6.2009} 10.7.2009} - No evidence, no step by plaintiff. 17.8.09 - Plaintiff given last chance to adduce evidence. 24.9.09 - Plaintiff failed to take steps for further evidence. 28.10.2009 -Plaintiff adjournment petition rejected on 2 counts. The learned trial court was not satisfied with the sufficiency of the cause soug ht to be projected by the plaintiffs for granting adjournment in the absence of sufficient documents on the plea so raised by him. That apart, it is not the cas e that the plaintiffs were not given minimal opportunity to adduce evidence and in fact he examined one PW 1 as his Attorney. The defendants had already stated that they were not going to adduce evidence. In view of the above, I find that the learned trial court has committed no juris dictional error or otherwise justifying interference in exercise of extraordinar y jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of merit stands rejected.