JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The second party members are the Petitioners against the order dated 7-3-1974. On 10-1-1974 both the first party and the second party members filed their written statements and some affidavits. The case was adjourned to 11-1-1974 to consider whether the managing trustee, should be added as a party. On that date the managing trustee was added as a party and the case was adjourned to 25.1.1974 for filing written statement by the managing trustee. On written statement being filed the case was adjourned to 1.3.1974 for argument. On that date the second party members filed on application for cross-examination of two witnesses who filed affidavits on behalf of the first party members. This application was rejected on 7-3-1974 by the learned Magistrate on the ground that there was delay and laches in making the application. 2. It is now settled by a Bench decision of this Court reported in Gopi Harachandan and Ors. v. Ramakrishna Paltasinha and Ors. ILR 1967 Cutt 862, that witnesses filing affidavits can be cross-examined. The prayer of the second party members was not rejected on the ground that cross-examination was not necessary, but on the ground that there was laches and delay in filing the application. On a reference to the order sheet I find that the second party members could have made that prayer on 25-1-1974. Without doing it on that very date they made the prayer immediately on the next date. The delay is not such that the prayer for cross-examination of the affidavit witnesses should have been rejected. It is well known that affidavit evidence is generally prepared in the office of the advocates in a very mechanical manner and if a party wants to test the correctness of the affidavits the prayer should not be lightly rejected without cogent and compelling reasons. At any rate, the Magistrate must indicate the reasons for which the prayer for cross-examination is rejected. As I have already said, there is no delay or at any rate much delay in making the prayer. 3. In the result, the impugned order dated 7-3-1974 refusing the prayer for cross-examination is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to allow the members of the second party to cross-examine the two witnesses Puma Chandra Gochhi and Srinibas Patnaik who have filed affidavits on behalf of the first party. 4. 3. In the result, the impugned order dated 7-3-1974 refusing the prayer for cross-examination is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to allow the members of the second party to cross-examine the two witnesses Puma Chandra Gochhi and Srinibas Patnaik who have filed affidavits on behalf of the first party. 4. The criminal revision is allowed. Final Result : Allowed