CRP 110/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P.K.MUSAHARY Heard Mr. P.Barthakur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mrs. S.Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and Mr. G.N.Sahewalla, learned Senior Advo cate, assisted by Mr. J.Bora, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant. This application has been filed U/s. 115 read with section 151 of the CPC challenging the order dated 18.01.2011 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Dhubri in Title Suit No. 216/82, wherein observation has been made that re -examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses be done at the first and thereafter th e PWs be re-examined. It may be noted here that the impugned order was passed on the a pplication made by the defendant, wherein she prayed for providing her an opport unity to re- cross examination of PWs who were earlier examined or re-examined. The aforesaid application was opposed by the petitioner/plaintiff by filing wr itten statement saying that there is no such provision in the Evidence Act to re cross examine the witnesses who were already examined. Mr. Barthakur, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner/plainti ff strongly argued that under the Evidence Act, the witnesses can be examined, c ross examine and recross examined and there is no provision for recross examin ation. To substantiate his submission, he has relied on the decision of the Ape x Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Garg Vs Naresh Kr. Gupta, reported in 2009 1 3 SCC 201 and in the case of Pannayar Vs State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2009 9 SCC 152. He further submitted that the demand of the defendant to recross ex amine the plaintiff’s witnesses who were already cross examined already, is misc onceived and the same cannot be allowed. Mr. G.N.Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel for the respondent/def endant opposing the aforesaid submission argued that the present revision petiti on is not maintainable at all, inasmuch as, it has been filed U/s. 115 read with section 151 of CPC, and the order under challenge is an interlocutory order aga inst which no revision lies. As per the amended provision in the CPC, there is n o scope for filing such revision petition. Additionally Mr. G.N.Sahewalla, learn ed Senior counsel submits that since the new issues were framed by this court at the time of remanding the case an occasion has arisen to get certain aspects of the issues clarified which would is possible after cross examination of the wit nesses and therefore it cannot be said that re-examination of the witnesses afte r remand cannot be allowed under any circumstances. According to him, the learne d Munsiff No.1, Dhubri has passed the reasoned order which needs no interference . I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. As regards the submission of Mr. Barthakur , learned Senior counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that there is no provision for recross examination, it must be noted that the facts and circumstances of t he cited cases are not similar to the present case, inasmuch as, in the cited ca ses the matter was not remanded. In fact in the aforesaid cases, recross examina tion/cross examination was not allowed as it was an usual case without involvin g any remand for deciding additional or fresh issues in the present case. This c ourt found that the suit in question for remand could not be decided unless th e said two other issues, namely, 1) whether the plaintiff/appellant’s husband, S ri Upendra Basak was the constituted attorney of the defendant/respondent No.1 ’s husband, Sri Upendra Nath Basak had the right and attorney to sell the suit l and to the plaintiff/appellant, Smti. Champabala Basak under the said Registered Sale Deed dated 6.5.76 and 2) whether the right and title of the suit land h ad been transferred to the plaintiff/appellant under the Registered Sale Deed da ted 6.5.76. These new issues were framed for the purpose of coming to a right d ecision and accordingly this court allowed the parties to adduce oral as well as documentary evidence. The present petitioner/plaintiff has raised no objection to such direction of this court and it appears that both the parties were aggrie ved due to passing of such order. It is for the parties to decide as to whethe r after the remand they would like to adduce further evidence by producing some materials before the trial court. It is a case where the plaintiff/petitioner h as opted not to examine further witnesses or re-examine his witnesses already ex amined. The question is whether in the evidence of opting for not examining furt her witnesses by the plaintiff, the defendant can demand for re-examine the witn esses already examined by the plaintiff. This question can be decided taking int o consideration whether the plaintiff’s witness/witnesses are required to be cro ss examined to clarify certain questions by way of further cross examination. Th e question of further cross examination would not have arisen if the matter was not remanded from this court framing more issues. The framing of issues involves examination of witnesses already examined and cross examined by the parties. It is for the parties to decide as to whether they should adduce further evidence or re-examine or cross examine but when the additional issues are framed no matt er whether the plaintiff side opted not to adduce evidence, the right to further cross examine plaintiff’s witnesses by the defendant cannot be curtailed. In the aforesaid premises and in the interest of deciding the fresh iss ues framed by this court at the time of remanding the case, I find it justified to allow the defendant/opposite parties to allow further cross examination of th e plaintiff’s witnesses by the defendant. In view of the above, I find no infirmity and illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Dhubri. It is, therefore, uph eld and the present petition stands dismissed. However, liberty is granted to th e plaintiff to take the opportunity of adducing further evidence in regard to ne w issues framed by this court, if so advised. It is needless to say that the pla intiff side may also cross examine the defendant’s witnesses.