CRP 203/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.UPADHYAY Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, and Mr. R.K . Bhatra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party. This Court, on an application filed by the petitioner-defendant, by an order dat ed 06.10.2010, in CRP No.366 of 2010, issued a direction to the learned Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh, to fix a date for cross-examination of the FSL Commissioner by the petitioner-defendant. It was further directed by this court that in the even t of failure of the petitioner to cross-examine the FSL Commissioner, on his app earance on the date so fixed, no further opportunity would be granted to him. The learned Court below was also directed to record the cross-examination of the FSL Commissioner on condition of payment of Rs.7,500/- by the petitioner-defend ant as cost for brining the FSL Commissioner and to deposit the same on appearan ce of the parties. The relevant extract of the order passed by this court in CRP No. 366 of 2010 on 06.10.2010 reads as follows:- In view of the aforesaid position, the impugned order dated 2nd July, 2010 and 21st July, 2010 are set aside. The learned Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh shall fix a date for cross-examination of the FSL Commissioner by the petitioner/defendant. In the event, on the date so fixed, the FSL Commissioner is present for cross-e xamination and the petitioner/defendant does not cross-examine the Commissioner, no further opportunity shall be granted. The defendant/petitioner, however, sh all bear the cost for bringing the FSL Commissioner as assessed by the learned M unsiff for cross-examination, which shall be deposited by the petitioner/defenda nt within 3(three) days from such assessment. That apart, the petitioner/defend ant shall pay Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred) as cost to the pla intiff/opposite party, as the proceeding has been delayed because of the petitio ner. Such cost shall be deposited on the date fixed by this Court for appearanc e of the parties. The parties shall appear before the learned Munsiff No.1, Dib rugarh on 12th November, 2010. Payment of such costs is the condition precedent . After taking necessary steps, learned trial Court below fixed a date for summon ing the FSL Commissioner, for his cross-examination by the petitioner-defendant. On the date so fixed, for cross-examination of the FLS Commissioner, learned tri al Court passed the following orders: 29.03.2011 Both sides represented S.R. on Commissioner returned but same not turned up. See n the Petition No.1254/11 filed by Plaintiff praying for not to allow further ch ance to summon hand writing expert showing that defendants not taking step prope rly. Heard. It appears from C.R. that Hon’ble High Court is CRP No.366/10 gave d irection to take step within three days but defendant took time and even receivi ng S.R. the expert(Commissioner) not come. In this situation the prayer of Plain tiff is allowed and examination of Commissioner is closed with as case is delaye d. Fix 12.04.2011 for Argument. Sd/- illegible Munsiff No.1 Dibrugarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 29.03.2011, eve n in spite of service of notice to appear before the Court as a witness, the FSL Commissioner did not turn up. The plaintiff-opposite party filed a petition bef ore the learned trial Court praying not to afford any further opportunity to the petitioner to summon the FSL Commissioner as a witness for his cross-examinatio n by the petitioner. Learned trial Court below, upon consideration of the petition so filed b y the plaintiff-opposite party, by the aforesaid impugned order, closed the cros s-examination of the FSL Commissioner, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner-defendant to cross-examine the FSL Commissioner. Apparently, it appears that the petitioner-defendant was disallowed to c ross-examine the FSL Commissioner. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party has submitted that the petitioner-defendant is consistently trying to delay in the proceedings by dragg ing the litigation. Considering the entire gamut of facts, and further considering the impug ned order, I am of the considered view that there is no reason to disallow and d eprive the petitioner to cross-examine the FSL Commissioner for none of his faul t. If the petitioner had not cross-examined the FSL Commissioner, despite his pr esence in the Court, the impugned order of the learned Court below would have be en justified. However, otherwise, to curtail the right of the petitioner to cros s-examine the FSL Commissioner, without valid reason, would amount to denial of natural justice. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner-defendant is required to be given one more chance to cross-examine the FSL Commissioner. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.03.2011, passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh, is hereby set aside and the learned Court below is dire cted to summon the FSL Commissioner as a witness for his cross-examination by th e petitioner-defendant on a convenient date. It is also made clear that the peti tioner-defendant shall take appropriate steps for summoning the FSL Commissioner through the court as a witness for his cross-examination. However, if on the da te so fixed by the Court, the FSL Commissioner is present for cross-examination and the petitioner/defendant fails or does not cross-examine him, no further opp ortunity shall be granted to the petitioner-defendant. This revision petition is disposed of in terms of the above observations and directions. However, in the facts and circumstances, I pass no order as to costs.