JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. A. R. Shome, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. P. Kataki, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner herein has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court challenging the order dated 17.12.2024 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.24/2024 arising out of Title Suit No.12/2018 by the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sivasagar (hereinafter refered to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs for re-examination of the plaintiff witness No.3 was allowed. 3. This Court has duly perused the materials on record and from the materials on record, it is seen that the plaintiff witness No.3 was the Sheristadar of the Court of Munsiff, Sivasgar. 4. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that during the cross- examination of the plaintiff witness No.3, the defendant got the Treasury Challans exhibited as Exhibit-A1 to Exhibit-A58, and as such, it was necessary on the part of the plaintiffs to re-examine the plaintiff witness No.3 on the Treasury Challans. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs filed the application seeking re- examination of the plaintiff witness No.3. The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide the order dated 17.12.2024, and under such circumstances, the present proceedings have been initiated. 5. Mr. A. R. Shome, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner who is the defendant in the suit, challenged the impugned order on the ground that the order so passed would allow the plaintiffs to fill up the lacuna in their evidence. He further submitted that the defendant/the petitioner would be prejudiced taking into account that the defendant/the petitioner has already submitted the examination-in-chief of one witness and thereafter the application seeking re-examination was filed. He further submitted that the filing of the application by the plaintiff witness No.3 after more than 1 year of discharging of the plaintiff witness No.3 clearly shows that it is an afterthought to fill up the lacuna. 6. Per contra, Mr. He further submitted that the filing of the application by the plaintiff witness No.3 after more than 1 year of discharging of the plaintiff witness No.3 clearly shows that it is an afterthought to fill up the lacuna. 6. Per contra, Mr. P. Kataki, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents who are the plaintiffs submitted that the documents Exhibit-A1 to Exhibit-A58 were exhibited through the plaintiff witness No.3 by the defendant and the plaintiffs did not have a chance to deal with these documents, and as such, there is a requirement of re-examination of the plaintiff witness No.3 on these documents. 7. This Court upon hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties has duly perused the impugned order by which the learned Trial Court had permitted the re-examination of the plaintiff witness No.3. It is relevant to take note of that the defendant did not exhibit Exhibit-A1 to Exhibit-A58 by himself or his witness, but exhibited through the plaintiff witness No.3. As regards the veracity of these documents and the effect of the documents, the plaintiffs definitely would have a right to examine the plaintiff witness No.3. 8. Considering the same, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the learned Trial Court was justified in allowing the re-examination. 9. Be that as it may, this Court however takes note of that the plaintiff witness No.3 was discharged on 05.09.2022 and the application for re-examination was filed on 09.02.2024, i.e. after a period of more than one year, six months. It is strange that the learned Trial Court did not take into account that such a belated action had led to the delay in the trial and thereby amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. It is the opinion of this Court that the learned Trial Court ought to have imposed exemplary costs rather than a mere cost of Rs.2,000/- upon the plaintiffs for filing the belated application. 10. Considering the above, this Court disposes of the instant application with the following observations and directions:- (i) This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 17.12.2024 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.24/2024 arising out of Title Suit No.12/2018. (ii) This Court further observes that the defendant/the petitioner will have a right to re-cross-examine the plaintiff witness No.3 after the re-examination by the plaintiffs of the plaintiff witness No.3. (ii) This Court further observes that the defendant/the petitioner will have a right to re-cross-examine the plaintiff witness No.3 after the re-examination by the plaintiffs of the plaintiff witness No.3. (iii) This Court further observes that the cost so imposed by the learned Trial Court was a very minimal cost. Accordingly, this Court although upholds the order dated 17.12.2024, but enhances the cost to Rs.25,000/- upon the plaintiffs. (iv) The learned Trial Court shall give a further liberty to the defendant/the petitioner to file additional examination-in-chief by way of affidavit. (v) This Court vacates the order dated 11.06.2025 and fixes the matter before the learned Trial Court on 14.07.2025 on which date the plaintiffs shall deposit the cost of Rs.25000/-. It is observed that if the amount of Rs.2,000/- has already been deposited by the plaintiffs, the same shall be set off. Out of the cost of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.23,000/- be remitted to the District Legal Services Authority, Sivasagar by the learned Trial Court.