FAO 6/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY (By B.P. Katakey, J.) Heard Mr. BN Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. D. Das, le arned counsel appearing for the respondents. This appeal filed by the plaintiff is directed against an order dated 5. 1.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Barpeta in Title Suit No.6 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed on the groun d that the witnesses whose examination in chief has been recorded are absent for cross-examination by the defendant. The plaintiff-appellant instituted the said suit for restitution of her conjugal rights in the Court of the learned District Judge, Barpeta. In the said suit, evidence-on-affidavit of the witnesses of the plaintiff’s side were filed . The case was, thereafter, fixed for cross-examination of those witnesses by th e defendant-respondent. Though the plaintiff took a number of adjournments for p roduction of those witnesses for cross examination by the defendant, she has fai led to produce the witnesses for cross-examination. The case was ultimately fixe d on 27.11.2007 on which date also neither the plaintiff herself nor her witness es were present for cross-examination. The learned Court below, however, by the order dated 27.11.2007 adjourned the case to 5.1.2008 for cross-examination of t he witnesses of the plaintiff subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/-. Such order was passed for the ends of justice though neither the plaintiff nor her witness es were present for cross-examination or any application for adjournment was fil ed. On 5.1.2008 the plaintiff filed another application being petition No.18 /08 praying for further adjournment and also for waiving the cost awarded. The s aid application had been rejected by the order dated 5.1.2008 on the ground that number of adjournments were granted earlier and by order dated 27.11.2007 adjou rnment cost was granted. The only contention raised in this appeal by the learne d counsel for the appellant is that the learned Court ought to have proceeded to decide the suit on the basis of the pleadings in the plaint and written stateme nt filed, when the appellant has failed to produce any of her witnesses for cros s-examination. The plaintiff having failed to produce the witnesses for cross-examinati on by the defendants, their testimony cannot be taken into consideration by the Court below for the purpose of deciding the suit, when the defendant was willing to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff. It is also not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant in the written statement has admitted the claim of the plaintiff or part of it made in the plaint. That being the position, the le arned Court below had no alternative, but to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff h aving rejected the application for adjournment in the absence of any evidence on record, as the suit cannot be decided on the basis of the pleadings, unless tho se pleadings are proved by adducing evidence. No argument has been advanced chal lenging the grounds on which the prayer for adjournment has been refused by the learned Court below. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed b y the learned Court below. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. No costs.