CRP 452/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr A C Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. None has entere d appearance on behalf of the respondents. The factual background in short is that the petitioner has instituted T. S. 25/2009 in the Court of the learned Munsiff, North Lakhimpur against the resp ondents praying for a decree inter alia for declaration of his right, title and interest in the suit land and also for recovery of possession thereof with the h ouses thereon by demolishing unauthorized structures made by them. The responden ts/ defendants have resisted the claim by filing their written statement. They h ave also registered a counter claim to which the petitioner/ plaintiff has filed his written statement. The petitioner/ plaintiff has stated on oath before this Court that he i s a resident of Dhakuakhana which is distantly located from North Lakhimpur town for which he is not in a position to get in touch with his learned counsel cond ucting the suit on regular basis. Inadequate and poor communication system has a dded to this problem as in view thereof he has not been able to visit his Advoca te regularly. Inspite of all these difficulties though his affidavit-evidence ha d been drawn up, the same could not be filed on 24.8.2010, the date fixed theref or in the suit because of his inability to attend the Court. An application for adjournment was therefore filed by his learned Advocate with a prayer to fix an other date for filing of his affidavit-evidence. Though no written objection was filed on behalf of the respondents, the learned Court below after hearing both the parties by the order impugned rejected the prayer made and closed the petiti oner/ plaintiff’s side of evidence and fixed the suit on 15.9.2010 for recording evidence of the respondents/ defendants. Mr Sarma has urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Court below ought to have allowed the prayer for adjournment and that th e refusal thereof, if sustained, would result in irreparable loss and prejudice to the petitioner/ plaintiff. As the suit involves immovable property with the p etitioner’s claim for declaration of his right, title and interest therein as we ll as recovery of possession, in the interest of justice, intervention in the in stant proceeding is called for to redress his grievances, he urged. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a considerati on of the averments made in the revision petition before this Court as well as t he grounds cited in the application for adjournment filed on 24.8.2010 explainin g the reasons for his inability to submit his affidavit-evidence, I am of the vi ew that in the singular facts and circumstances the petitioner/ plaintiff is ent itled to one more opportunity of adducing evidence in the suit. While the order impugned stricto senso does not call for any interference if judged strictly by the rigour of Order 17 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, having regard to the explanation provided in para 4 of this petition supported by an affirmation of t he petitioner to be true to his knowledge, I am of the opinion, balancing the eq uities, that he is entitled to this relaxation. In the above view of the matter, the order dated 24.8.2010 is interfered with. The learned Trial Court would permit the petitioner/plaintiff to adduce h is affidavit-evidence before proceeding further in the suit. It is made clear th at he would be entitled to one opportunity of adducing such evidence and the lea rned Court below would fix a date therefor. It is submitted at the Bar that exam ination of the witnesses of the respondents/ defendants has not yet started. The petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.