JUDGMENT Satya Brata Sanyal, J. The sole question in this civil revision application is as to whether a witness who does not come forward for further cross-examination, his evidence can at all be taken into consideration as evidence in the case. 2. The defendant has come up before this Court against an order of the learned 3nd Additional Subordinate Judge where the latter relying upon a decision of this Court in Mt. Horil Kuer and another vs. Ajah Ali and others (A.I.R. 1986 Patna 34) held the evidence of such a witness cannot be ignored and has to be considered by the Court as evidence in the case. 3. Mr. Sukumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that the impugned order is vitiated by illegality and material irregularity. According to the learned counsel, admittedly, the witness is not dead but alive. He had made himself scare as he was subjected to stiff cross-examination. Admittedly, the cross-examination was not completed by the defendant and the Advocate Commissioner exhausted all his efforts by sending reminder after reminder to the witness to make himself available for further cross-examination. In spite of all that, the witness, who is none else, but plaintiff no, 1 himself, did not make himself available for further cross-examination by the defendant. The Advocate Commissioner then closed the evidence and returned his writ along with the partial evidence recorded by him. 4. In the circumstances, the question is whether the examination-in-chief of the witness who is plaintiff no. 1 and part of his cross-examination can be treated as his evidence and be used against the defendant. 5. Mr. Kamlapati Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, contended that the evidence cannot be ignored for the said reason and it must be considered by the court for whatever it is worth. He reiterated the principle laid down in Mt. Horil Kuer and another (supra). 6. I am unable to accept the reason given by the trial court as the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite parties. The case of Mt. Horil Kuer and another (supra) is a ease where the witness had died. The evidence of such a witness would be relevant under section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act. The case of Mt. Horil Kuer and another (supra) is a ease where the witness had died. The evidence of such a witness would be relevant under section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act. The ratio of the said case cannot be extended beyond the said case or beyond the situation and circumstances of the lame kind. In the instant case the plaintiff, is purposely remaining away from being cross-examined thus denying an opportunity to the defendant to test the truthfulness or falsity of his evidence in examination-in-chief. In my opinion, every party has a right inherent to cross-examine a witness for making the evidence receivable in a suit. [See 1930 Privy Council 79 & 5 C.W.N. 230]. Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act does not apply to the circumstances of the present kind. 7. In the result, the civil revision application is allowed and the order of the court below is set aside. It is directed that the plaintiff no. 1 be given one more opportunity for presenting himself for further cross-examination by the defendant. If he fails to make himself available, in that event, his evidence shall be scrapped from the proceeding, and the same shall not be taken into consideration for any purpose. There will, however, be no order as to cost. Before parting with this judgment, I must say that the suit out of which this civil revision arises is a very old one and, therefore, I direct the court below to expedite the hearing of the suit and dispose it of as quickly as possible.