CRP 207/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel, for the petitioners, who are defendants in T itle Suit No.86/2008, presently pending in the Court of learned Munsiff No.1, Ha ilakandi. By order, dated 03.06.2010, passed, in Title Suit No.86/2008, by the learned Mun siff No.1, Hailakandi, the suit was fixed for cross-examination of the plaintiff ’s witnesses on 29.06.2010. As the Presiding Officer was on leave, the matter wa s adjourned till 31.07.2010 for cross-examination. On 31.07.2010, the suit was, again, adjourned for cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses. Thereafter, on the next date, i.e., on 21.08.2010, the learned counsel for the defendants s ought for adjournment of hearing of the suit and the same was granted and the ca se came to be fixed, on 01.10.2010, for cross-examination of the plaintiff’s wit nesses. On the date, so fixed, i.e., on 01.10.2010, the plaintiff was present wi th witnesses, but they could not be cross-examined, because none appeared on beh alf of the defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses till 3.45 pm. T he learned trial Court, then, passed an order imposing cost of Rs.200/- on the d efendants. On the next date, i.e., on 04.12.2010, the plaintiff was present with the witnesses, but the defendants’ side sought for adjournment. The learned tri al Court, therefore, rejected, on 04.12.2010, the petition seeking adjournment o n the ground that the defendants’ side has been seeking adjournment again and ag ain and even the petition, filed on that day, discloses no convincing reason for seeking adjournment. An application was, then, again, filed, on behalf of the d efendants, seeking to recall the order, dated 04.12.2010. In this application to o, no reason was assigned as to why the direction, given by order, dated 04.12.2 010, declining to allow adjournment, ought to be recalled. Except saying that if cross-examination is not allowed, the defendants would suffer irreparable loss, nothing was, in fact, stated by the defendants in their petition filed seeking recalling of the order, dated 04.12.2010. Thus, as already indicated hereinbefor e, even the petition seeking recalling of the order, dated 04.12.2010, assign no good cause for the defendants’ inability to cross-examine witnesses. In fact, w hen the petition seeking recalling of the plaintiff’s witnesses was taken up on 05.01.2011, none appeared to press the said petition and the learned trial Court , again, fixed 03.02.2011, for hearing on the said petition. Even on the next da y, i.e., on 03.02.2011, when the petition seeking recalling of the order, dated 04.12.2010, was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the defendants. Eventually, on 18.03.2011, learned trial Court took up the petition seeking rec alling of the order, dated 04.12.2010, because even on 18.03.2011, none appeared on behalf of the defendants and on the ground that the defendants have not disc losed any reason for recalling of the order, the petition was rejected. This revision does not put to challenge the order, dated 04.12.2010. Since the o rder, dated 04.12.2010, remains unchallenged, there is no question of interferin g with the order, dated 18.03.2011, inasmuch as there is, as indicated above, no infirmity, legal or otherwise, in the order, dated 18.03.2011. This apart, the defendants, as indicated hereinbefore, have not challenged the order, dated 04.1 2.2010, and have not even produced the petition, whereby adjournment, on 04.12.2 010, was sought for. In the circumstances as indicated above, it becomes clear that neither the order , dated 04.12.2010, nor the order, dated 18.03.2011, can be interfered with. This revision is, therefore, not admitted and shall accordingly stand dismissed. The interim order, passed, in this revision, on 24.06.2011, shall accordingly st and vacated.