This revision is directed against the order dated 4.7. 1984 passed by the learned Sadar Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh whereby the petitioner's prayer for examination of witnesses on commission was rejected. 2. The petitioner was defendant in a suit for ejectment and had prayed for examination of some witnesses on commission. The prayer was allowed by the Court below and the petitioner was required to take steps for deposi­ting the costs of commission and furnishing interrogatories. The petitioner deposited the costs on 18.5.79 and the petitioner's contention is that he also had furnished interrogatories. The learned Court below, however on 4.7.84 took the view that the petitioner had delayed the matter and had not taken the steps in that even though costs were deposited on 18.5.79, the interrogatories had not been furnished and accordingly the prayer for issue of writ of commission for examination of witnesses was rejected. 3. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come to this Court and Shri D.N. Baruah, learned counsel appearing on his behalf has submitted that the petitioner had taken all the steps which he had to take, in that the petitioner had deposited the costs of the commission and also furnished interrogatories and that the learned trial Court had erroneously taken the view that the petitioner had delayed the matter and had not taken steps for furnishing interrogatories. 4. Shri D. C. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand has submitted that in the order there was no illegality and it has not resulted in any material prejudice to the petitioner and accordingly no interference was required and this Court should not exercise its revisional jurisdiction in the matter. 5. I have considered the submissions for the parties and the materials on record. 6. The learned trial Court had earlier allowed the petitioner's prayer for examination of witnesses on commission which clearly means that the learned trial Court was satisfied about the need for examination of witnesses on commission. 7. The petitioner's contention that he had deposited the costs of com­mission by 18.5.79 was accepted by the trial Court. The petitioner's contention which has not been controverted by counter affidavit is that he had also furnished the interrogatories on which the witnesses were to be examined. The learned trial Court has observed that the petitioner had not filed the interrogatories. The petitioner's contention that he had deposited the costs of com­mission by 18.5.79 was accepted by the trial Court. The petitioner's contention which has not been controverted by counter affidavit is that he had also furnished the interrogatories on which the witnesses were to be examined. The learned trial Court has observed that the petitioner had not filed the interrogatories. But from the records it appears that the petitioner had filed the interrogatories for examination of the witnesses on 5.2.81 whereupon the Court had directed the opposite party to file cross-interrogatories which were, however not filed, but for which time was repeatedly given to the opposite party. It is, therefore, difficult to see how the learned Court below could take the view that the defendant had not taken steps more so when the Court itself had repeatedly allowed the opposite party time to file cross interro­gatories. The very basis of the impugned order made by the learned trial Court, therefore was incorrect and accordingly the impugned order should not be sustained. The learned trial Court has observed that the matter was being delayed and the defendant had not shown why the witnesses were required to be examined. The Court having had allowed the prayer for examination of witnesses on commission earlier, and necessary steps having had taken, rejection of the prayer was improper and unjustified. In this view of the matter, the impugned order has to be set aside. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, this revision is allowed, the impugned order dated 4.7.1984 is set aside. The learned trial Court shall resume the proceeding and direct the opposite party to file cross-interrogatories immediately within a specified time and take further necessary action. The learned trial Court shall thereafter dispose of the matter expeditiously. Since it is an old case the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 10.1.1991. No order as to costs is made. Send back the records to the trial Court immediately.