CRP 380/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The challenge is to the order dated 28.9.2011 passed at different points of time in course of the day by the learned Court below eventually dispensing with the cross-examination of D.W. 3 by the petitioner/ plaintiff and fixing the suit for arguments on 3.11.2011. I have heard Mr AR Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner had instituted T.S. No. 471/2008 in the Court of the lear ned Munsiff No.4, Kamrup at Guwahati against the opposite party praying for a de cree for permanent injunction to restrain them from forcibly evicting him from the suit premises. The petitioner claimed himself to be a tenant under the oppos ite party. Along with the plaint, an application praying for interim injunction was also made which was registered as Misc. Case No. 756/2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner on being queried by this Court ha s submitted that an order of ad-interim restraint as prayed for had been passed by the learned Court below and that the same is in force as on date. After framing of the issues recording of the evidence of the witnesses o f the parties started and 28.9.2011 was fixed for cross-examination of D.W. 3. O n that date a petition for adjournment was filed on behalf of the petitioner p leading illness of his learned counsel. By the impugned order the petition was r ejected in view of Order XVII, Sub-Rule 2(e) of Rule-1 of the Code of Civil Proc edure. The petitioner, however, was granted liberty to cross-examine the witness i.e. D.W.3. As indicated hereinabove, the impugned order discloses that till 1. 30 p.m. though the witness was present, inspite of rejection of the prayer for a djournment, no step was taken on behalf of the petitioner to cross-examine him. At 4.30 p.m. when the same state of affairs continued, the learned Court below d ischarged the witness and fixed 3.11.2011 for arguments. Mr Medhi has urged that having regard to the ground cited by the petitio ner in the petition for adjournment, the impugned order discharging D.W.3 and fi xing the suit for arguments is palpably illegal and ought to be interfered with in the interest of justice. On being queried by this Court, the learned counsel has admitted that the petitioner had also engaged a junior counsel to assist the learned senior counsel who in terms of the application for adjournment was aili ng and, thus, was not in a position to attend the Court. Mr Medhi has not been a ble to apprise this Court of the steps taken by the learned junior counsel in co urse of the day after the rejection of the application for adjournment by the Co urt. It is not the plea of the petitioner that inspite of any step taken by the learned junior counsel or further prayer being made by him to reconsider the or der of rejection of the prayer for adjournment the learned Court below adhered to the earlier decision. On the other hand, the impugned order in clear terms r eveals that the learned Court below waited for the whole day for the witness to be cross-examined. The witness as well was kept waiting to be cross-examined. In the above view of the matter, this Court is not impressed with the su bmission made on behalf of the petitioner. The learned junior counsel having bee n engaged by him (petitioner), in the opinion of this Court, it was incumbent on his part to take necessary steps, more particularly in the face of the rejectio n of the prayer for adjournment and in the interest of the party which he was su pposed to defend at all costs. The petition lacks in merit and is dismissed. This dismissal notwithstan ding, if a prayer is made explaining the default observed hereinabove, the learn ed Court below would examine the same on merits and take an appropriate decision . No costs.