1. Heard Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Ali, the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners/ defendants have challenged the order dated 13.06.2016 passed by the learned Court of Civil Judge No. 3, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati, thereby rejecting their petition No. 2540/16 dated 07.06.2016 for examining one more person, namely, Sri Chandan Sen as their defendant’s witness. In challenge is also the order dated 26.08.2016, passed by the said learned court, by which their petition No. 2307/16 for review of the aforesaid order dated 13.06.2016 was also rejected.

3. Owing to the nature of grievances raised in the present application, with the consent of the learned counsel for both sides, the matter was heard in the admission stage.

4. As the issue in the present application is whether the learned court below had committed any jurisdictional error in passing the orders impugned herein, it is not deemed necessary to burden this judgment with the pleadings of the parties.

5. From the materials available on record, it appears that the respondents had filed Title Suit No. 235/2008, now pending for adjudication before the Court of learned Civil Judge No. 3, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the “learned court below”) for declaration of right, title, interest over land described in Schedule-B of the plaint, for eviction of the defendants and for recovery of khas possession, injunction, etc.

6. On 15.05.2010, the petitioners/defendants had submitted their list of witnesses containing 11 names. The suit was pending for production of Defendants’ witnesses (DWs for short) for facing cross-examination. By order dated 08.01.2016, the petitioners/ defendants were given a last chance to produce their DWs for cross-examination on 25.01.2016 with a cost of Rs. 1,000/-. On 25.01.2016, in violation of the order passed by the learned trial court, the petitioners did not produce their remaining DWs for facing cross-examination and as such, by order dated 25.01.2016, the evidence of the petitioner’s/defendant’s side was closed and the suit was fixed on 16.02.2016 for argument.

7. Aggrieved by the closure of the evidence of their side, the petitioners herein approached this Court by filing an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which was registered as CRP No. 153/16, which was allowed by this Court by order dated 26.05.2016, which is quoted below:-

“By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the correctness of the order dated 25.01.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge No. 3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in title Suit No. 235/2008. By that order, the learned trial court closed the evidence of the defendant's side on the failure of the DWs subjecting them from cross-examination. Having gone through the impugned order, I do not find any jurisdictional error whatsoever. But in course of motion hearing of this petition, Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel for the opposite parties, submitted in his usual fairness that he will have no objection if a fixed date is given for cross-examination for all the remaining DWs and if on the fixed date the DWs appear and subject themselves for cross-examination in that event, the plaintiff side would not have any objection.

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, I dispose of this revision petition with a direction that the defendants shall produce their DWs on 07.06.2016 on which date all of them shall be cross examined. If all the witnesses could not be cross examined on that day, the matter shall be continued till the next date i.e. on 08.06.2016 and on that date after the cross-examination shall be closed and the case shall be fixed for argument. This application is allowed with further cost of Rs. 1000/-.”

8. It would be pertinent to mention here that p