Suman Shyam, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Bharali, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Z. Mukit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. This Revision Petition has been preferred against the order dated 07.08.2017 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Karnrup(M), Guwahati, in Title Suit No. 405/2011 rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under Section 151 of the CPC seeking to cross-examine the DW- 6.

2. The respondent No. 1 herein as plaintiff had instituted Title Suit No. 405/2011 in the Court of Munsiff No. 2, Kamrup(M) praying for a decree declaring her right, title and interest over the suit path; a decree declaring that the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 as well as defendant Nos. 4 and 5 do not have any right, title or authority over the suit land; for a decree of permanent injunction and for other consequential reliefs. The suit land has been described as a 6 ft wide path forming a part of the land covered by Dag No. 130 of Patta No. 78 of Sahar Guwahati, First Part, Mouza Ulubari, in the district of Kamrup.

3. The petitioners herein have been impleaded as the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the Title suit. They have contested the suit by filing a joint written statement denying the case of the plaintiff.

4. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 here-in, who are the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 in the title suit, have also contested the suit by filing a separate written statement. In their written statement, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have, inter alia, stated that the suit path is their exclusive property and the plaintiff does not have any right to claim any benefit in respect of the 6 ft. wide passage. While admitting the existence of the suit path, defendant Nos. 4 and 5 have stated that the suit path has no connection with the land of Patta No. 78; that the suit land had fallen in the share of their predecessor-in-interest late Dwijendra Narayan Mazumdar, from whom, they had inherited the same. It has also been averred in the written statement that the plaintiff has staked claim in respect of the land of Patta No. 78 against the will and wish of their father. On the basis of such statements the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 have prayed for dismissal of the suit with cost.

5. During trial, the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 had examined the defendant No. 5 as a witness (DW 6) in support of the statements made in their written statement. The DW-6 in his examination-in-chief filed on affidavit has reiterated the stand taken in the written statement. But during cross-examination, the DW-6 has admitted that the suit path falls in the land covered under Patta No. 78 of Dag No. 130. The witness had also stated that the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 i.e. the present revision petitioners had entered into an agreement for using the suit path and they constructed a gate on the eastern side of the suit path by demolishing 4/5 ft. of the boundary wall. The witness had also made a statement to the effect that on 02.11.2007 an agreement was executed for the passage in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and permission was given to them on the basis of an assurance that they would do the earth filling on the passage.

6. DW-6 was the last witness examined by the parties and on conclusion of his cross-examination, the suit was fixed for argument. At that stage, the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 i.e. the revision petitioners here-in had filed petition No. 1332 under Section 151 of the CPC making a prayer before the Court to allow them to cross-examine the DW- 6 on the ground that the said witness had taken a stand which was contrary to the stand taken in the written statement whereby, the witness has taken a diametrically opposite stand, practically supporting the case of the plaintiff.

7. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff had filed written objection opposing the prayer. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 in the suit had also f