N. K. BHATTACHARYYA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the ld. Advocates for parties and perused the record. ( 2 ) THE landlord-petitioner by this revision challenged order No. 78 dated 21st day of July, 1992 passed by the Assistant District Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 113 of 1985, allowing the Tenant's Defendant's application under Order 18, Rule 2 (4) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. ( 3 ) THE short background of the case is that the Opposite Party was a Tenant regarding 3rd floor at Premises No. P-545, Lake Road Extension, Calcutta-700 029, at a monthly rental of Rs. 750. 00 on the basis of a Registered Lease dated 19th day of June, 1964 for a period of 21 years commencing from 1st day of June, 1964 and expiring on 31st day of May, 1985. ( 4 ) THE owner-landlord brought the aforesaid suit in the 3rd Court of Assistant District Judge, Alipore, for eviction of the said tenant defendant from the suit premises on the ground of default, for breach of terms of lease on the ground that certain structural additions or alterations of the suit premises has been made by the tenant and also on the ground of expiry of the period of lease by efflux of time. Amongst other prayers were also made for recovery of arrears of rent for the period from January 1984, for means of profits etc. ( 5 ) THE defendant took several adjournments to file the written statement and ultimately filed the written statement after suffering order for ex parte hearing and adjournment cost. 5a. The ld. trial Court allowed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code of one Mr. Sumar Chand Mehta, an employee of the defendant company, on the ground that the defendant has settled the flat with the said Mr. Mehta. A Division Bench of this Court has set aside that order. ( 6 ) THE defendant made another application on 6th day of March, 1987 for taking steps to discover documents and the ld. Assistant District Judge granted time to the defendant. Since then the defendant took several adjournments on different dates to discover documents. The adjournment dates are 14-12-87, 5-2-88, 16-3-88, 27-5-88 and 12-9-88 but ultimately did not discover any document. Assistant District Judge granted time to the defendant. Since then the defendant took several adjournments on different dates to discover documents. The adjournment dates are 14-12-87, 5-2-88, 16-3-88, 27-5-88 and 12-9-88 but ultimately did not discover any document. ( 7 ) UPON plaintiff's prayer the suit was fixed for peremptory hearing on 21st day of June, 1989. Even at that stage the defendant took adjournment and suffered an order of costs of Rs. 50. 00 as condition precedent. ( 8 ) THE examination of the plaintiff's witness started on 7th of August, 1989 and P. W. 1, Mrs. Hem Kumari Chaturvedi was examined and cross-examined for several dates and her cross-examination was completed on 15-7-91. ( 9 ) IN the meantime upon an application under Order 39, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure an Advocate Commissioner, Smt. Supriya Mukherjee, was appointed for local inspection of the suit premises and she submitted her report. She was examined as P. W. 2 on 12th of August, 1991 and her cross-examined was over on 25th of September, 1991. ( 10 ) ON 28th of November, 1991 the defendant produced its witness one Mr. Debakar Chatterjee, who was examined in part and the suit was adjourned to 18th of December, 1991. On that date the defendant took an adjournment and the suit was fixed for hearing on 13-1-92. Upon the prayer of the defendant the examination of D. W. 1 was postponed on 13-1-92 and on 6-2-92 with cost of Rs. 500. 00. The defendant again tendered his witness Mr. Debakar Chatterjee on 25-2-92. He was examined in full and cross-examined in part on that day. Since then he was not tendered for further cross-examination and his cross-examination remained in complete. ( 11 ) 12th of March, 1992 was fixed for further evidence of D. W. l, Mr. Debakar Chatterjee. The defence Counsel expressed before the Court his inability to produce the said witness in spite of his best endeavour to do so and on his invitation to pass any order commensurate with the circumstances the Trial Court passed order for closing the evidence and fixed 19-3-1992 for argument. ( 12 ) THE defence Counsel on that date made an abortive attempt to postpone the hearing and the plaintiff's counsel argued in part. ( 12 ) THE defence Counsel on that date made an abortive attempt to postpone the hearing and the plaintiff's counsel argued in part. ( 13 ) ON 25-3-1992 after the conclusion of plaintiffs argument the Defendant's Lawyer argued on the point of financial jurisdiction of the Court and the plaintiff's ld. lawyer made his submission on that point. The Trial Court found that it has jurisdiction to try the suit. ( 14 ) THEREAFTER the Court adjourned the hearing of the argument of the defence Counsel on 8-4-1992 and 23-4-1992 and he was heard in part on 4-5-1992. ( 15 ) ON the next date of hearing on 19-5-1992 the defendant again took an adjournment on payment of cost of Rs. 500. 00 and the Trial Court fixed the suit on 5-6-1992 for further argument of the defence Lawyer. ( 16 ) ON 5-5-1992 the defendant filed an affirmed petition under Order 18, Rule 1 (4) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying, inter alia, to permit the defendant to adduce evidence. ( 17 ) FROM the impugned order it appears that the defendant wanted to re-examine the said D. W. 1, Mr. Debakar Chatterjee, further. The prayer was objected too but the ld. Assistant District Judge by his order No. 78 dated 21-7-1992 allowed the said prayer on payment of costs of Rs. 1,000. 00 granting leave to the defendant to examine its witness. The petitioner has come up before this Court against that order. ( 18 ) IT will not be out of place to note that the said petition was affirmed by the said Mr. Debakar Chatterjee who deposed as D. W. 1 in the case. ( 19 ) IN the said petition it has been stated, inter alia, that due to the change of office from 3, Netaji Subhas Road to 10, old Post Office Street, Calcutta, some papers were misled on which the defendant could lay hand presently. The documents alleged to have been found are a letter dated 31-3-1984 accompanying a pay order which was sent by Mr. S. C. Mehta to the plaintiff and which was accepted by the plaintiff and the money order coupons by which the defendant sent rents for March 1991 onwards and the plaintiff refused to accept the same. The documents alleged to have been found are a letter dated 31-3-1984 accompanying a pay order which was sent by Mr. S. C. Mehta to the plaintiff and which was accepted by the plaintiff and the money order coupons by which the defendant sent rents for March 1991 onwards and the plaintiff refused to accept the same. ( 20 ) IT appears from the petition made by the defendant under Order 18, Rule 1 (4) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, which is Annexure 'a' to the revisional application, that the defendant could lay hand on the documents aforesaid either on 14th or 15th day of May, 1992. The order sheet of the case shows that the case was fixed for further arguments of the defendant's Lawyer on 19th day of May, 1992 but the same was adjourned at the instance of the defendant. Even on that date it was not disclosed before the Court that such documents were found out and that would be used by the defendant. The defendant waited for about a month to come before the Court only to stall the hearing of the suit. The ld. Court below recorded the same in his order No. 76 dated 19-5-1992. ( 21 ) THE ld. Advocate for the petitioner Miss Nirmala Kumari Chaturvedi contended that the petitioner has suffered prejudice by the impugned order and due to such protraction of the litigation by myriad devices of the defendant her client is suffering inconvenience and hardship and the ld. Court not having taken into consideration of the same has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law and has acted illegally and with material irregularity. ( 22 ) THE ld. advocate for the opposite party on the other hand contended that unless an opportunity is given to his client to adduce further evidence through Mr. Debakar Chatterjee his client will suffer prejudice and will be denied of the opportunity of contesting the suit in a proper manner. ( 23 ) HAVING heard the ld. advocate for the parties and perusing the materials before us we are of the considered view that ever since the date of the order for filing the written statement the defendant tried to thwart the proceeding and tried to prolong it for an indefinite period in one way of the other. ( 23 ) HAVING heard the ld. advocate for the parties and perusing the materials before us we are of the considered view that ever since the date of the order for filing the written statement the defendant tried to thwart the proceeding and tried to prolong it for an indefinite period in one way of the other. ( 24 ) THE defendant's witness was examined for days together and in the course of cross-examination of the said witness the said witness absented himself from the pale of such cross-examination and the defendant's Lawyer on his failure to produce the said witness in spite of his best endeavour brought it to the notice of the Court and an order for closure of the evidence was passed by the Trial Court on invitum. ( 25 ) EVEN on subsequent dates and even during the time of argument by the ld. advocates for the parties it was not brought to the notice of the Court that the said witness Mr. Debakar Chatterjee could not appear before the Court due to his illness, as has been alleged in the petition under Order 18, Rule 1 (4) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 26 ) THE record further reveals that even during the time of argument by the defendant's Lawyer time was taken more than once to complete the argument and ultimately when the argument was heard in part and awaiting completion at that stage the defendant made that application under Order 18, Rule 1 (4) or 2 (4) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. ( 27 ) IT appears from the conduct of the defendant that the defendant tried to procrastinate the hearing of the suit and adopted several methods to delay the hearing. The prejudice caused is not to the defendant but to the plaintiff. Even ld. Court below observed the time in his order No. 76 dated 19-5-1992. Allowing of the application of the defendant granting leave to the defendant to examine the said witness of the defendant would amount in all intent and purpose to engage the evidences adduced for the plaintiff, effect of cross-examination of the defence witness and the argument advanced by her Lawyer and that will cause preat prejudice to the plaintiff's case. Allowing of the application of the defendant granting leave to the defendant to examine the said witness of the defendant would amount in all intent and purpose to engage the evidences adduced for the plaintiff, effect of cross-examination of the defence witness and the argument advanced by her Lawyer and that will cause preat prejudice to the plaintiff's case. The Court below having failed to consider that question at the time of granting leave to re-examine its witness failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by law and have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. ( 28 ) HE has also not taking into consideration the prejudice that would be caused to the plaintiff. Accordingly, in our opinion if we allow to stand that order that would occasion a failure of justice and cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff. ( 29 ) WE are of considered view that the order cannot be sustained in law. In the result the revisional application is allowed. The order impugned is hereby set aside. ( 30 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. ( 31 ) S. K. MOOKHERJEE, J. :- 31. I agree with the conclusion. ( 32 ) ON the prayer made, on behalf of the revisional petitioner, we direct the Trial Court to expedite the hearing of the suit. Since this is an old suit and as observed to our judgment that there will be interruption in the hearing of the suit, it is expected that the Court below will endeavour to dispose of the suit within the months from the date of communication of this order to the concerned Court. The communication may be made by the learned Advocates through their letters. ( 33 ) ON behalf of the opposite parties, the prayer of stay of operation of this order is made, but, in view of the reasonings which we have already given, such prayer is refused. ( 34 ) LET xerox copies of this order be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertakings to apply for and obtain urgent certified copies. Revision allowed.