CRP 254/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. SN Sarma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. P Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. RPN Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party. Though, Mr. Singh has prayed for a week’s time, this Court having regard to the order impugned is not inclined to accede to the said prayer. Shortly put the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant petition are that the opposite party as plaintiff instituted TS No. 22/2005 in the Court of the l earned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati, for ejectment of the petitioner from the suit premises as described therein. The petitioner on receiving the summons in the suit entered appearance and filed his written statement. The suit was th ereafter fixed for the examination of the witnesses of the opposite party/plaint iff and on the completion thereof, it was, eventually slated on 28.04.2011 for t he cross-examination of the witnesses of the petitioner/defendant. Meanwhile, th e petitioner had submitted his affidavit evidence on 27.11.2008, and was partial ly cross-examined on behalf of the opposite party on that day. Though, several d ates were fixed thereafter for completion of the cross-examination of the petiti oner for one reason or the other, the same could not be done. On 28.04.2011 agai n a prayer for adjournment of the hearing was made on behalf of the petitioner o n the ground that he was suffering from viral fever. The application for prayer for adjournment was accompanied by a medical certificate. The learned trial Cour t, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and sustaining the objection raised on behalf of the opposite party, closed the side of the evidence of the petitioner and fixed 20.05.2011 for the cross-examination of his other witnesses . Mr. Sarma, while contending that the impugned order has been passed by totally d isregarding the ground of illness that had rendered the petitioner unable to att end the court has urged that if allowed to stand the same would result in irrepa rable loss and prejudice to him (petitioner). He has submitted that he (petition er) does not wish to examine any other witness in support of his case. The learn ed Senior Counsel has, therefore, urged that in the interest of justice one oppo rtunity ought to be granted to the petitioner to present himself for cross-exami nation on behalf of the opposite party. Mr. Singh has, however, vehemently urged that as the present petition is only a ruse to delay the proceedings of the suit, the impugned order having been passed in exercise of the learned Trial Court’s judicial discretion, no interference i s warranted. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the p leaded facts, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to one m ore opportunity to present himself for completion of his cross-examination. A bare perusal of the application dated 28.04.2011, whereby, the petitioner had prayed for adjournment of the hearing, would reveal that he had been suffering f rom viral fever from the previous few days and had been advised by his consultan t physician to take complete rest for one month. He, therefore, averred, in view of his ailing health, that he was not in a position to attend the court. A medi cal certificate to the above effect dated 27.04.2011 was also appended to the ap plication. The impugned order does not record the rejection of the medical certi ficate or the ground of illness put forward by the petitioner in support to his prayer for adjournment. In the above view of the matter and on a consideration of the totality of the ci rcumstances, this Court is of the view that, if the impugned order is allowed to stand, it would amount to denying the petitioner a fair trial. It is, therefore , interfered with. It is, however, made clear, as the suit is one for ejectment, that the petitioner is granted only one opportunity to present himself in court to be cross-examined on behalf of the opposite party so that the controversy is resolved as expeditiously as possible at the present level. The petition is thu s allowed. The parties would appear before the Trial Court on 26.08.2011 to take further order(s). No costs.