ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Uzir, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.11.2013 passed by the learned Munsiff, Bilasipara in Money Suit No. 1/2011. By the said order Petition No. 1933/2013 and 1936/2013 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner to allow examination of further PWs and to defer cross-examination of DWs 1 and 2 were both rejected. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is petty contractor and he had done some civil works for the respondent i.e. Sapatgram Town Committee for which the suit was filed claiming recovery a sum of Rs.93,000/- with interest. It is further projected that where proving Ext. 1, due to inadvertent mistake the signature of the Ex-Chairman and the then Assistant Engineer, Sapatgram Town Committee were not exhibited by examining them. He further submits that as the cross-examination of DWs 1 and 2 did not commence, if additional witnesses are called to prove the said signatures, the respondent herein would not suffer any prejudice. It is also submitted that by the impugned order, cross-examination of DWs 1 and 2 were also closed, which is causing far greater prejudice to the petitioner than the prejudice suffered by the respondent herein. 4. Mr. G. Uzir, learned counsel for the respondent refers to the affidavit-in-opposition filed in this case and projects that the petitioner was the plaintiff in Money Suit No. 1/2011 and had very belatedly approached the court with the prayer for examining further witnesses. He has referred to Annexure-A to A-13 appended to the affidavit-in-opposition to project that for about 18 months the plaintiff had dragged the suit at this stage of cross-examination of DWs 1. It is submitted that despite imposition of cost as well as warning by the learned Munsiff as recorded in order dated 07.01.2013 that no further adjournment would be granted to the petitioner still further adjournment of the cross-examination of the DWs were availed by the petitioner. Ultimately, by order dated 15.03.2013, the suit has been dismissed for default. Even after restoration of the suit and imposition of cost on various occasions, the petitioner herein is delaying the progress of the suit and therefore, Mr. Ultimately, by order dated 15.03.2013, the suit has been dismissed for default. Even after restoration of the suit and imposition of cost on various occasions, the petitioner herein is delaying the progress of the suit and therefore, Mr. G. Uzir, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the prayer made in present revision application. 5. On perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that in the present case in hand the petition filed for examination of the Ex-Chairman and the then Assistant Engineer of Sapatgram Town Committee was filed about 18 months after the evidence of PWs was closed. The reason shown in the petition (Annexure D in this revision) shows that delay in making the prayer for examining the additional witnesses has not been properly explained. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to allow the petitioner to examine any further persons as PWs at this stage when the DWs have already filed their evidence on affidavit and the suit is at the stage of cross-examination of those DWs. 7. However, considering the fact that as the deferment of cross-examination of DWs was sought because the petitioner had already filed an application being Petition No. 1933/2013, praying before the court for cross-examining further DWs. 8. In that view of the matter, the impugned order insofar as it relates to the forfeiture of the right to cross-examine the DWs is concerned, the same is interfered with and modified by directing the court of learned Munsiff, Bilasipara to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the DWs on the date fixed for that purpose by the learned Court. It is made clear that if on the date so fixed, the petitioner does not cross-examine the DWs, that opportunity would stand lost and forfeited and the DWs would stand discharged. It is made clear that if the cross-examination has commenced, but cannot be completed within the allotted time, the learned Munsiff, Bilasipara would be free to exercise its discretion in fixing another date for the cross-examination of DWs. 9. As this Court has found that the petitioner has could delay in the progress of the suit, the petitioner is directed to deposit a cost of Rs.1000/- in favour of the respondent before the court of learned Munsiff, Bilasipara on the next date fixed as a pre-condition for cross examination of DWs. 9. As this Court has found that the petitioner has could delay in the progress of the suit, the petitioner is directed to deposit a cost of Rs.1000/- in favour of the respondent before the court of learned Munsiff, Bilasipara on the next date fixed as a pre-condition for cross examination of DWs. The parties are directed to appear before the court of learned Munsiff, Bilasipara on 01.03.2017 to take further instructions from the said learned Court. 10. The revision is partly allowed.