Sl.12 11.09.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 3079 of 2026 Saiful Islam -versus- Dilnawaz Tabassum Mr. Ranojoy Chatterjee Mr. Swarnajit Das ..for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the proforma defendant and is directed against an order dated 11th August, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court at Asansol, Paschim Bardhaman in Title Suit No. 866 of 2021. By the order impugned the prayer for adjournment at the instance of the proforma defendant to cross examine the DW-1 stood rejected and 28th August, 2026 was fixed for evidence of DW-2. Record reveals that the cross examination of DW-1 by the plaintiff was closed on 25th June, 2026. On that date, the cross-examination of DW-1 on the prayer of the learned counsel for the proforma defendant was adjourned and 3rd August, 2026 was fixed for cross-examination of DW-1 by the proforma defendant. On 3rd August, 2026 the DW-1 was cross-examined by the proforma defendant no.2 in part and it was deferred on the prayer of the defendant. 2 The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court at Asansol, Paschim Bardhaman by an order dated 3rd August, 2026 fixed 11th August, 2026 for further cross- examination of DW-1 by the proforma defendant. It was specifically observed in the said order dated 3rd August, 2026 that no adjournment will be allowed on whatever ground may be. The order dated 3rd August, 2026 has not been assailed by the petitioner in this civil revisional application. After going through the cross-examination of D.W-1 by the proforma defendant this Court finds that a substantial cross-examination was made by the proforma defendant on 3rd August, 2026. However, on 11th August, 2026 the proforma defendant came up with a new plea that unless the certified copy of the deposition is made available to the proforma defendant further cross- examination is not possible. At this stage, it would be relevant to point out that on 25th June, 2026 the cross- examination at the instance of the proforma defendant was adjourned on the prayer of the learned counsel for the proforma defendant. If the learned counsel felt that without the certified copy of the deposition of DW-1 the cross-examination of DW-1 cannot be effectively conducted, this Court fails to understand as to why the application for certified copy was made by the proforma defendant only on 4th August, 2026 as specifically stated in the application for adjournment. 3 This Court is of the view that such prayer was only to delay the cross-examination of the DW-1. The learned trial judge has specifically noted that the cross- examination of DW-1 commenced since 19th March, 2026 and she was being cross-examined by the learned counsel for the plaintiff on 19.03.2026, 08.05.2026 and 25.06.2026 and thereafter the learned counsel for the proforma defendant pleaded that he also need to cross- examine the said witness and the prayer was allowed with specific direction that it should be concluded on the next date. But on 3rd August, 2026 again the DW-1 was cross- examined in part and further time was sought which was allowed with the caution that the cross-examination must be completed on 11th August, 2026. The learned trial judge recorded a factual finding that the ground for adjournment is nothing but an excuse to drag the cross- examination further. Since the evidence of DW-1 was closed thereby rejecting the prayer for adjournment by assigning cogent reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere with such order. Accordingly, C.O. 3079 stands dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)