CRP 109/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The revisional as well as the superintending jurisdiction of this Court has bee n sought to be invoked to annul the order dated 18.12.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge No2, Kamrup, Guwahati in Title Suit No.222/2007 dismissing the peti tioner-plaintiff’s suit for non prosecution thereof. I have heard Mr. R.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Shar ma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. G. Jalan, learned counsel for the Opposite P arty. For the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered essential to issue for mal notice on the other opposite party. The petitioner as plaintiff had institu ted the aforementioned suit in the Court of Learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup, Gu wahati. It, later on, was transferred to the file of the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati for disposal. Therein, the petitioner-plaintiff prayed for a decree, inter alia for declaration that the agreement (referred to in the pla int as document No.1) executed between him and the defendant No.1 was in force and that in terms thereof he was entitled to possess and occupy the suit premise s. A decree for permanent injunction was also sought for to restrain the Defend ant No.1, her employee etc. from recovering the possession thereof from him. Tho ugh, initially, the present opposite party No.1 was not a party in the suit, at her instance she was impleaded as Defendant No.4. There is no wrangle at the Ba r that the opposite party No.1 (Defendant No.4) is the owner of the suit premise s. The records reveal that the suit had been instituted on 07.09.2007. The petitio ner-plaintiff, however submitted his affidavit-evidence after seeking adjournmen ts on various dates on 20.04.2010. As a matter of fact, as it is submitted at th e Bar, till the date of the passing of the impugned order, it was the only evide nce on record from the side of the petitioner-plaintiff. On a perusal of the or der-sheet of the suit (original records whereof had been summoned to this Court) , it transpires that thereafter, the suit had been fixed on 19.05.2010, 08.07.20 10, 30.09.2010, 29.11.2010 and finally on 18.12.2010. The orders passed on the said dates disclose that the petitioner-plaintiff took time on 19.05.2010, 18.07 .2010, 30.09.2010, 29.11.2010 as well as on 18.12.2010. He was joined by Defenda nt Nos.2 & 3 in seeking adjournment on 30.09.2010. It is thus apparent that fro m 20.04.2010 up to 18.12.2010 the opposite party No.1 did not pray for adjournme nt even on a single date. This assumes significance, in view of the fact that t he suit was pending at that stage for the appearance of the petitioner-plaintiff for his cross-examination by the defendants. The order dated 08.07.2010 reveal s that on adjournment being sought for by petitioner-plaintiff, objection was ra ised on behalf of the opposite party No.1-Defendant No.4, on which the learned C ourt while fixing the next date to be 28.08.2010 observed that no further adjour nment would be granted except in compelling circumstances. Inspite of this, on 2 9.11.2010, adjournment was sought on the ground that the petitioner-plaintiff wa s away to Chennai for his medical treatment. A petition to that effect was also submitted. The learned trial Court on the said date directed the petitioner-pl aintiff to produce the medical documents in support of the statement of the peti tioner-plaintiff’s illness and his treatment at Chennai fixing 18.12.2010. On t hat date i.e. 18.12.2010, a petition being No.3538/2010 on behalf of the petitio ner-plaintiff was filed admitting that though it had been represented before the learned trial Court on the previous date i.e. 29.11.2010 that he had been away to Chennai for treatment, it was in fact, not so and that he was undertaking tre atment at Guwahati. A medical certificate to this effect was submitted alongwit h the above petition. The impugned order dated 18.12.2010 would reveal that on vehement objection being raised on behalf of the opposite party No.1-Defendant No.4, emphasizing in particular, that the petitioner-plaintiff on one reason or the other was protracting the suit to the great predicament of his client, the learned trial Court on a consideration of the fact that he( petitioner-plaintiff ) had taken several adjournments concluded that he was not, in fact, interested in the furtherance of the suit and dismissed it for non prosecution. Mr. Jain has argued that the statement made in the petition filed on 29.11.2010 before the learned trial Court that the petitioner-plaintiff had been at Chennai for medical treatment is a bona fide mistake and that as the medical certificat e submitted on 18.12.2010 clearly proved his illness, the impugned order ought not to have been passed. While highlighting that the trial Court had not disbel ieved the ground of illness of the petitioner-plaintiff, the learned counsel has insisted that in absence of any material on record even to infer collusion betw een the petitioner-plaintiff and the other defendants, the impugned order, in th e interest of justice needs to be interfered with. In endorsement of his submission, Mr. Jain has sought to rely upon on the orde r dated 30.09.2010 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in CRP No.60/2004 (U nion Bank of India -v- Dhanjit Das & Ors.). Mr. Sharma, in reply, has urged against the maintainability of the present petit ion contending that having regard to the content and tenor of the impugned order and the background thereof, it is one under order XVII Rule 2 of Civil Procedur e Code and is appealable as decree. The learned Senior Counsel has further argued that it being apparent on the face of the record that the petitioner-plaintiff was not interested to prosecute the suit but to delay it only to harass and intimidate the opposite party No.1-Defe ndant No.4, the learned trial Court having rightly passed the impugned order in the exercise of its judicial discretion no interference therewith is called for in the instant case. On a conjoint reading of the orders passed since 20.04.2010, the essence whereof has been recited hereinabove, it is apparent that the suit from time to time wa s being adjourned at the instance of the petitioner-plaintiff for his failure to present himself for cross-examination by the defendants. Though, the learned t rial Court by its order dated 08.07.2010 had observed, in clear terms, that no a djournment would be allowed to the petitioner-plaintiff in future except in comp elling circumstances, prayer for time was made on 30.09.2010, 29.11.2010 and 18. 12.2010. Not only, the ground of bona fide mistake mentioned in the petition fi led on 18.12.2010 lacks persuasion, in the opinion of this Court the medical cer tificate also does not inspire confidence having regard to the ailment mentioned therein. On a totality of the consideration as hereinabove and having regard to the reaso ns recorded in the impugned order, this Court is not inclined to exercise either its revisional or its superintending jurisdiction to interfere therewith. The impugned order having been passed in the exercise of the learned trial Court’s j udicial discretion and there being no material on record to conclude that the co nclusion recorded by it is either illogical or irrational in the opinion of this Court the prayer for interference with the impugned order ought not to be acced ed to. A perusal of the order dated 30.09.2010 passed in Union Bank of India -v - Dhanjit Das & Ors. (Supra) reveals that the same is distinguishable on facts and therefore does not advance the case of the petitioner-plaintiff in any manne r. The petition, in the result, stands rejected. No costs. The Registry would send back the lower Court records forthwith.