JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This is a revision petition filed by the defendants in the Original Suit No. 13 of 2008 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Imphal East praying for setting aside the order dated 04.01.2016 of the learned Civil Judge passed therein, wherein further proceeding of the Original Suit was fixed for further PW hearing. The order of the learned Civil Judge is only 2 (two) sentences and are given here below: “J.M. Case No. 308/15 is disposed of as not pressed. Fix 12.01.2016 for P.W. hearing.” 2. Heard Mr. Ch. Nikel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. H. Nabachandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that after recording evidence of 3 (three) PWs of the plaintiffs (respondents in this case), the learned Trial Court closed the PW hearing as prayed for by the learned counsel of the plaintiffs and fixed 25.10.2010 for final hearing/argument by an order dated 01.10.2010. However, on the application filed by the defendants, the learned Trial Court by an order dated 09.11.2010 passed in Judicial Misc. Case No. 162 of 2010 allowed defendants (respondents in this case) to cross-examine the witnesses. Being aggrieved the plaintiffs (respondents in this case) approached the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench for setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge allowing cross-examination of the witnesses. However, the Hon’ble High Court by an order passed on 16.03.2011 passed in Civil Revision Case No. 11 of 2010 upheld the order of the learned Civil Judge. In pursuance of that order, the PWs were cross-examined and were discharged by the order of the learned Civil Judge. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court on 05.12.2015 passed an order by which the case was fixed for hearing on 17.12.2015. However, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) passed another order on 04.01.2016 (impugned order) fixing 12.01.2016 for PW hearing in-spite of the fact that PW hearing was already closed. This order, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is liable to be set aside on the following grounds: (i) Because PW hearing was already closed on the prayer of the plaintiffs (respondents in this case) themselves, therefore, the learned Trial Court ought not to have fixed the case for further PW hearing, instead the case should have been fixed for DW hearing. But having ordered for further PW hearing, the learned Trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction, therefore, the impugned order is illegal and deserves to be set aside. (ii) Because PW hearing was already closed, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) has no power under the law to re-open further PW hearing. Therefore, the order is erroneous in law and hence liable to be set aside. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents (plaintiffs in the O.S.) submitted that the petitioners in this case have not presented the true facts and circumstances that has taken place in the case after the order dated 04.01.2016 (impugned order) was passed. The learned counsel submitted the following facts and circumstances which according to him has taken place after the order dated 04.01.2016 was passed: The petitioners (defendants in the O.S.) filed a Judicial Misc. Case before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) praying not to allow the plaintiffs (respondents in this case) to further record evidence of PWs. The petition was registered as Judicial Misc. Case No. 10 of 2016. At the same the same time, the plaintiffs (respondents in this case) also filed an application praying for allowing them to produce two more witnesses who according to them are very important witnesses for them. The same was registered as Judicial Misc. Case No. 11 of 2016. 4. The learned Trial Court took up the 2 (two) the two Judicial Misc. Cases and disposed them by a common order passed on 25.01.2016 allowing the prayer of plaintiffs (respondents in this case) to examine the PW No. 4 and one more witness subject to payment of Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees four thousand) as cost. Therefore, after the order dated 04.01.2016, there has been further development in the case, as such the revision petition filed in this case is misleading and not based on true facts, hence deserves to be dismissed. 5. The petitioners in this revision case have not challenged or refuted the facts and circumstances as submitted by the respondents that further PW hearing has been allowed even after the impugned order was passed by the common order dated 25.01.2016 of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) in the Judicial Misc. Case No. 10 of 2016 and Judicial Misc. Case No. 11 of 2016. I have gone through the order of the learned Civil Judge. Divn.) in the Judicial Misc. Case No. 10 of 2016 and Judicial Misc. Case No. 11 of 2016. I have gone through the order of the learned Civil Judge. The learned Civil Judge after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable was of the view that to give fair chance to both the parties to prove their respective case and also to give fair trial, the prayer for permission to examine more PWs should be allowed, accordingly, had allowed further examination of the PWs subject to payment of Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees four thousand) as cost. Of the two witnesses one is the seller of the disputed land to the plaintiffs and the other being the advocate who drafted the sale deed for the same. 6. The learned Trial Court in arriving at such a decision relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 2795-2796 of 2011 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18211-18212 of 2010]. The relevant portion of the judgment is given here below: “9. There is no specific provision in the Code enabling the parties to re-open the evidence for the purpose of further examination-in-chief or cross-examination. Section 151 of the Code provides that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Code to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. In the absence of any provision providing for re-opening of the evidence or recall or any witness for further examination or cross-examination, for purposes other than securing clarification required by the Court, the inherent power under section 151 of the Code, subject to its limitations, can be invoked in appropriate cases to re-open the evidence and/or recall witnesses for further examination. This inherent power of the Court is not affected by the express power conferred upon the court under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code to recall any witness to enable the court to put such question to elicit any clarifications. 10. The respondent contended that section 151 cannot be used for re-opening the evidence or for recalling witnesses. We are not able to accept the said submission as an absolute proposition. 10. The respondent contended that section 151 cannot be used for re-opening the evidence or for recalling witnesses. We are not able to accept the said submission as an absolute proposition. We however agree that section 151 of the Code cannot be routinely invoked for reopening evidence or recalling witnesses. The scope of section 151 has been explained by this court in several decisions (See : Padam Sen vs. State of U.P. AIR 1961 SC 218 ; Monoharlal Chopra vs. Seth Hiralal, AIR 1961 SC 527; Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993 ; Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. vs. Kanhay Lal, AIR 1966 SC 1899 ; Nain Singh vs. Koonwarjee, 1970 (1) SCC 732 ; The Newabganj Sugar Mills C. Ltd. vs. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1152 ; Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, AIR 1977 SC 1344; National Insurance of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences vs. C. Parameshwar, 2005 (2) SCC 256 and Vinod Seth vs. Devinder Bajaj, 2010 (8) SCC 1 ). We may summarize them as follows: (a) Section 151 is not a substantive provision which creates or confers any power or jurisdiction on courts. It merely recognizes the discretionary power inherent in every court as a necessary corollary for rendering justice in accordance with law, to do what is ‘right’ and undo what is ‘wrong’ that is, to do all things necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of its process. (b) As the provisions of the Code are not exhaustive, section 151 recognizes and confirms that if the Code does not expressly or impliedly cover any particular procedural aspect, the inherent power can be used to deal with such situation or aspect, if the ends of justice warrant it. The breadth of such power is co-extensive with the need to exercise such power on the facts and circumstances. (c) A Court has no power to do that which is prohibited by law or the Code, by purported exercise of its inherent powers. The breadth of such power is co-extensive with the need to exercise such power on the facts and circumstances. (c) A Court has no power to do that which is prohibited by law or the Code, by purported exercise of its inherent powers. If the Code contains provisions dealing with a particular topic or aspect, and such provisions either expressly by necessary implication exhaust the scope of the power of the Court or the jurisdiction that may exercise the relation to that matter, the inherent power cannot be invoked in order to cut across the powers conferred by the Code or a manner inconsistent with such provisions. In other words the court cannot make use of the special provisions of Section 151 of the Code, where the remedy or procedural is provided in the Code. (d) The inherent powers of the court being complementary to the powers specifically conferred, a court is free to exercise them for the purposes mentioned in Section 151 of the Code when the matter is not covered by any specific provision in the Code and the exercise of those powers would not in any way be in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the Code or be against the intention of the Legislature. (e) While exercising the inherent power, the court will be doubly cautious, as there is no legislative guidance to deal with the procedural situation and the exercise of power depends upon the discretion and wisdom of the court, and the facts and circumstances of the case. The absence of an express provision in the code and the recognition and saving of the inherent power of a court should not however be treated as a carte blanche to grant any relief. (f) The power under section 151 will have to be used with circumspection and care, only where it is absolutely necessary, when there is no provision in the Code governing the matter, when the bona fides of the applicant cannot be doubted, when such exercise is to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court.” It is clear from the common order stated above that through two separate petitions filed by both the parties the issue raised by the petitioners in this case was raised and the same was decided by the ld. Trial Court. Trial Court. It is also clear that the decision has not been challenged by the petitioners neither in this revision petition nor through any other petition. Since this common order is subsequent to the order challenged in this petition the petitioners should have challenged the same. Having not done so, I find no purpose being served by the revision petition. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petition only deserves to be dismissed. Further, as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cited case, Court has the power under section 151 of CPC to allow reopening of PW hearing if the witnesses that are proposed to be examined are likely to give evidence which will help in deciding the dispute. In the case at hand the two witnesses proposed to be examined are certainly important witnesses as one of them is the seller of the land in dispute and the other is the writer of the sale deed. Therefore, the court has not committed any error in law in passing the impugned order either. In view of the above the revision petition is dismissed. The learned Trial Court shall proceed with further PW hearing and make endeavour to dispose the case at the earliest possible.