JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel representing the respondent.

2. By filing the present revision petition invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, three different orders passed by the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia in connection with Money Suit No. 44/2016 have been put to challenge.

3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that respondent as plaintiff had instituted Money Suit No. 44/2016 in the court of Civil Judge, Tinsukia praying for a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,27,443/- from the petitioner/defendant together with future interest and cost. The petitioner had contested the suit by filing his written statement After framing of issues, the respondent/plaintiff had submitted his list of witnesses which included the name of Sri Om Prakash Shah as one of the witnesses. But when the said witness had refused to appear and adduce evidence without the summons from the court, the plaintiff had filed an application on 09.11.2017 praying for issuance of summons to the witness. The prayer for issuance of summons to the witness was allowed by the learned trial court on 09.11.2017 i.e. on the same day on which the application was filed. The order dated 09.11.2017 is under challenge in this proceeding.

4. It appears from the record that being dissatisfied with the order dated 09.11.2017, the petitioner had filed review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC seeking review of the order 09.11.2017. The review petition, which was numbered and registered as Misc (J) Case No. 60/2018 arising out of M.S. 44/2016, was rejected by the learned court below by order dated 26-04-2018.

5. After the rejection of the review petition, the petitioner had filed another application on 27.06.2018 with a prayer to permit the defendant to reserve the cross-examination of the PW-1 till the examination-in-chief of the PW-2 was completed by contending that if the cross examination of the PW-1 was held before the PW-2 is examined as a witness, serious prejudice would be caused to the interest of the defendant. By the order dated 27.06.2018 passed in M.S. 44/2016, the said prayer of the petitioner was also rejected by the learned court below.

6. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per Order 16 Rule 1(4) CPC, the plaintiff was required to file an application for issuance of summonses to the witness within five days of presenting the list of witnesses. But in this case, submits Mr. Dutta, there was delay in making the application for issuance of summons to the witness. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent had also failed to mention the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned as per requirement of Order 16 Rule 1 (2) CPC. In such view of the matter, submits Mr. Dutta, the learned court below had erred in exercising its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order dated 09.11.2017.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the trial court had not only rejected the review application filed by the petitioner without recording any valid reason but by the order dated 27.06.2018 the prayer for reserving the cross-examination of the PW-1 was also turned down without assigning any proper reasons. Mr. Dutta has relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association Vs. Union of India, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 49 as well as in the case of Lalitha J. Rai Vs. Aithappa Rai reported in (1995) 4 SCC 244 to contend that there was no legal bar for the learned court below to defer the cross-examination of the PW-1 in terms of the prayer made by the petitioner/defendant.

8. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has argued that the provision in Order 16 Rule 1(4) CPC is directory in nature. Since the plaintiff had filed an application furnishing the list of witnesses which had included