CRP 487/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.NK SINGH JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Perused the office note dated 21.01.2011 which indicates that A/ D care in respect of respondent Nos.1 to 4 had returned after proper service. No ne appears for respondent Nos.1 to 4 without showing any cause. [2] Heard Mr.B.C.Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. [3] This revision petition is directed against the order of the lear ned Civil Judge, Karimganj, dated 6.9.2010 passed in M.S No.7 of 2003 for closin g the evidence of the plaintiffs’ side thereby not allowing the cross examinatio n of PW.2, Shri Rajarshi Chakraborty. Copy of the day to day order sheets of M.S .No.7 of 2003 of the Court of Civil Judge (Jr Divn) Karimganj is available at An nexure-IV to the present revision petition. [4] On perusal of the order dated 1.8.2007 it is clear that PW.2 was cross examined but further examination was postponed due to paucity of time and fixed 2.8.2007 for further cross examination. On subsequent dates fixed for cro ss examination of PW.2, cross examination of PW.2 could not be completed because of adjournment sought for by the plaintiffs’ side and in such manner, cross exa mination of PW.2 could not be completed for almost three years. On the day of pa ssing the impugned order dated 6.9.2010 learned counsel for the plaintiffs filed petition No.634/11 praying time for cross examination of PW.2 as he (plaintiff) could not produce PW.2 for cross examination. The prayer for adjournment of the cross examination made by the plaintiffs had been rejected by the Trial Court v ide impugned order dated 6.9.2010 on two grounds; the first ground is that the P W.2 was cross examined on 1.8.2007 and completed and discharged without mentioni ng that his further cross examination is kept reserved, and the second ground is that there is delay in cross examination of PW. [5] On bare perusal of the impugned order date 6.9.2010, it is self contradictory for the reason that the first ground for rejecting the application for adjournment of the cross examination was that PW.2 had been cross examined and discharged and the second ground was that there was delay in cross examinati on of PW.2. [6] Therefore, it is not clear to this Court as to what is the findi ng of the Trial Court regarding the point as to whether cross examination of PW. 2 had been completed or not. Order dated 1.8.2007 clearly speaks that PW.2 was c ross examined but further examination was postponed due to paucity of time. And subsequent order sheet also shows very clearly that further cross examination of PW.2 was postponed from time to time on the basis of the application filed by t he plaintiffs. Therefore, from the order sheet, it is clear that cross examinati on of PW.2 was not complete and PW.2 was not discharged. [7] It is fairly well settled law that the fact stated in the order of the Court shall be presumed to be correct. The fact so mentioned in the order sheet cannot even be denied by way of affidavit or otherwise. [8] In the present case, in the orders, the Trial Court himself had clearly mentioned that cross examination of the PW.2 could not be completed beca use of adjournment from time to time from the side of the plaintiff. [9] As the PW.2 cannot be made available for cross examination by th e petitioner/defendant, the in chief portion of PW.2 is to be scored out inasmuc h as PW.2 was not available for testing the veracity of his statement made in th e examination in chief by way of cross examination. But the Trial Court did not score out the examination in chief of PW.2 who was not made available for cross examination by the defendant for the failure on the part of the plaintiff to pro duce PW.2 as his witness. [10] For the foregoing discussion and also for the ends of justice, t he impugned order dated 6.9.2010 is hereby set aside and PW.2 shall be made avai lable for cross examination by the defendants; and in case, PW.2 is not availabl e for cross examination by the defendants for the failure on the part of the pla intiff to produce PW.2 for cross examination, the in-chief portion of PW.2 shall be scored out. With the above observation and direction, the revision petition is allowed. The petitioner shall approach the learned Trial Court with a copy of the order of this Court for allowing him (defendant) to cross examine PW.2 on t he date fixed by the learned Trial Court.