B.P. Katakey, J.

1. The Defendants in Money Suit No. 1/2003, by the present petition have sought to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 05.03.2004 and 02.09.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Morigaon.

2. The Respondent herein instituted Money Suit No. 1/2003 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Morigaon against the Petitioners/Defendants praying for a decree for realization of Rs. 16,06,897/- with interest for bundling and feeding works executed by it for raw materials, i.e. bamboo, pursuant to the work order issued in their favour by the Petitioners, alleging that the said amount though was due and payable, has not been paid. The Petitioners/Defendants on receipt of the summons entered appearance and filed the written statement denying the claim of the Respondent/Plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit with an exemplary cost. In due course, the evidence of the Respondent/Plaintiff's witness No. 1 was examined and cross-examined. The Respondent, thereafter, on 30.01.2004 filed Petition No. 102/2004 for allowing it to file the originals copies retained by it of the bill Nos. 69 to 92, copies of which were filed along with the plaint and also register maintaining the accounts, stating inter alia, that those could not be filed earlier as the Chartered Accountant of Sibsagar, who was given those for the purpose of preparation of accounts, misfiled the same, but subsequently those could be traced out after the Plaintiff's evidence was adduced, though copies were filed along with the plaint. There was, however, no explanation as to why the copy of the register maintaining the accounts or the register could not be filed along with the plaint. Another petition being Petition No. 101/2004 was also filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff under Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for allowing the Plaintiff's witness No. 1 to be re-examined in respect of the documents, permission for filing of which was sought for by the other petition and to accept those documents in course of his re-examination. The Petitioners/Defendants, however, did not file any objection against the prayer made in the aforesaid two petitions. The learned Trial Court, upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on consideration of the averments made in the said petitions, allowed both the petitions vide order dated 05.03.2004. The Respondent/Plaintiff pursuant to such order filed the re-examination-in-chief of the Plaintiffs witness No. 1 by way of an affidavit on 22.03.2004. The Petitioners/Defendants, after lapse of about three months from the date of passing of the order dated 05.03.2004, filed an application for allowing them to file the objection against the aforesaid Petition Nos. 101/2004 and 102/2004 and to stay the operation of the order dated 05.03.2004, contending that due to the communication gap between the counsel and the Petitioners/Defendants, they could not file the objections against the prayer made in the said petitions, which was allowed by the learned Trial Court on 05.06.2004 itself and fixed 19.06.2004 for filing objections against the Petition Nos. 101/2004 and 102/2004 by the Petitioners/Defendants, without affording any opportunity to the Respondent/Plaintiff to file objection against such Petition No. 482/2004. On 19.06.2004, the Respondent/Plaintiff filed written objection against the Petition No. 482/2004. The Petitioners/Defendants also filed their written objections against the Petition Nos. 101/2004 and 102/2004 filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff. The learned Trial Court thereafter, on 30.06.2004 fixed 06.07.2004 for objection hearing on the Petition Nos. 482/2004, 101/2004 as well as 102/2004. Those petitions were heard by the learned Trial Court on 24.08.2004 and vide order dated 02.09.2004 rejected the Petition No. 482/2004 filed by the Petitioners/Defendants by maintaining the or