Order Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 12th June, 2008 passed by the Munsif, Daltonganj, in Title Suit No. 108 of 1988. 3. The facts are that the plaintiff examined one Abdul Jalil as P.W. 1. After completing his examination-in-chief, the defendants' counsel deferred cross-examination on the said date and thereafter since he was not cross-examined, the Court discharged the witness. Subsequently, on payment of cost of Rs. 150/- the defendants were allowed to cross-examine Abdul Jalil, but on the next date the Presiding Officer was not available and on subsequent date also for one or the other reasons the cross-examination could not be completed. Subsequently witness Abdul Jalil died and, therefore, he could not be cross-examined. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has emphasized that the Court below be directed that at least probatory value of the witness Abdul Jalil is very much there and, therefore, his statement should be kept on record and should not be ignored completely. 5. Learned counsel for the defendants/respondents has disputed this contention. He states that since there is no cross-examination, the statement could not be read in evidence. 6. The Court below has also closed opportunity of evidence of the plaintiff by means of another order dated 9th July, 2008 which is also challenged. In the circumstance it has resulted in a situation where the petitioner has been shut out from leading any evidence to substantiate his case and this has caused great prejudice to the plaintiff. 7. After hearing the counsel for both the parties, it is true that sans cross examination, the evidence if read against a party will lead definitely in miscarriage of justice, but on the other hand if the petitioner is not permitted to lead further evidence and the only evidence that was recorded has been ignored then it will equally prejudice to the plaintiff's case. 8. The Court below is directed that the plaintiff shall be permitted to lead further evidence in support of the case set up in the plaint. It is made clear that the Court shall refrain from taking any adverse opinion on account of the fact that Abdul Jalil, witness, who is now dead, has not been introduced in the Court by the plaintiff as a witness. 9. It is made clear that the Court shall refrain from taking any adverse opinion on account of the fact that Abdul Jalil, witness, who is now dead, has not been introduced in the Court by the plaintiff as a witness. 9. Since the circumstances as detailed in the order sheet itself, is very eloquent that it was not on account of fault of the plaintiff but it was for the reasons beyond the control of the plaintiff/petitioner. The Court shall proceed to record evidence in accordance with law. 10. With these directions the writ petition is partly allowed and the order dated 9th July, 2008 is hereby quashed.