JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Y Sikdar, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R. Sarma, leaned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.12.2016, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, No. 1 Kamrup, Guwahati in SPL LG Case No. 14/2014 thereby allowing the petition No. 670 dated 19.11.2015 filed by the respondents/plaintiffs to adduce their evidence deferring the cross examination of the defence witnesses. 3. The respondents/(plaintiffs) preferred a complaint petition before the learned District and Sessions Judge (M), Kamrup, Guwahati under Section 8 of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010 thereby alleging in the complaint petition that the present petitioner (defendant) had occupied a plot of land purportedly alleged to be the land of the respondents. On the basis of the said complaint, the Sessions SPL LG Case No. 14/2014 was registered and the same was transferred to the court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati for disposal. The petitioner as the defendant filed his written statement whereafter vide order dated 5.5.2015, the matter was fixed on 19.5.2015 for filing evidence on affidavit by the respondents as the plaintiffs. As admitted by the learned counsels, appearing on behalf of the parties to this petition out of the orders passed by the learned court below, on four dates, starting from 19.5.2015 orders were missing from the case record. However, from the order dated 27.7.2015, it is apparent that on that day both the parties were present and the respondents as the plaintiffs filed a petition No. 464/15 praying for another date for the cross-examination of the present defendant/petitioner and accordingly the matter was fixed on 17.8.2015 for cross examination of the defendant/petitioner. On 31.8.2015, the DW 1, Rajani Deka was cross-examined by the plaintiffs/respondents and the matter was fixed on 5.10.2015 for further cross-examination of the defendant/petitioner’s side. On 19.11.2015 the plaintiffs/respondents filed petition No. 670 thereby praying before the learned court below to allow the respondents to adduce evidence on affidavit thereby deferring the cross-examination of the present defendant/petitioner’s side. As per the said petition No. 670, the plaintiffs/respondents contended that the matter was fixed on 19.05.2015 for filing evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs/respondents’ side and on the prayer of the plaintiffs/respondents the matter was adjourned. As per the said petition No. 670, the plaintiffs/respondents contended that the matter was fixed on 19.05.2015 for filing evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs/respondents’ side and on the prayer of the plaintiffs/respondents the matter was adjourned. On the next date, the defendant/petitioner filed evidence on affidavit of their witnesses and if the plaintiffs/respondents were not allowed to adduce their evidence they would highly be prejudiced and as such the said petition No. 670 was filed with the prayer mentioned hereinabove. Against the said petition No. 670, the present defendant/petitioner filed their written objection vide petition No. 775 dated 19.12.2015 and brought to the notice of the learned court below that the plaintiffs/respondents having refused to adduce their evidence, the present defendant/petitioner had filed his evidence on affidavit whereafter the plaintiffs/respondents cross-examined witnesses of the defendant/petitioner and as such the plaintiffs/respondents cannot be permitted to allow them to adduce their evidence at this stage. 4. The learned court below vide order dated 18.2.2016 disposed of the said petition No. 670 dated 19.11.2015 thereby allowing the plaintiffs/respondents’ side to file their evidence fixing on 17.3.2016. While passing the said impugned order, the learned court below observed that the said proceeding proceeded in a irregular and defective manner which needs to be corrected. While doing so the learned court below observed that on 31.8.2015 the defence witness No. 1 Rajani Deka was cross-examined in part and the case was fixed for further cross-examination of defence side on 5.10.2015. The learned court below observed the wrong date while passing the impugned order instead of 31.8.2015 it has recorded as 31.1.2015. There was no effective order on 5.10.2015 except fixing the matter on 19-11-2015 for necessary order and on 19-11-2015, the said petition No. 670 was filed by the present plaintiffs/respondents. 5. It is also observed that as the order sheets dated 5.5.2015 to 27.7.2015 were missing from the case record under such circumstances, the learned court below found itself difficult to have a definite view with respect to the prayer sought for in the Petition No. 670, dated 19.11.2015. Accordingly, the said order which is impugned in this petition was passed. 6. Mr. Sikdar, learned counsel submits that the plaintiffs/respondents were fully aware that they had not adduced evidence and instead they had participated in the said proceeding even by cross examining the witnesses of the defendant/petitioner’s side. Accordingly, the said order which is impugned in this petition was passed. 6. Mr. Sikdar, learned counsel submits that the plaintiffs/respondents were fully aware that they had not adduced evidence and instead they had participated in the said proceeding even by cross examining the witnesses of the defendant/petitioner’s side. The act of participating in the said proceeding by way of cross examining the witnesses of the defendant/petitioner’s side, itself implies that the plaintiffs/respondents have waived their right of adducing evidence and as such the learned court below was wrong in passing the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside. 7. Mr. Sarma submits that the plaintiffs/respondents could not file their evidence on affidavit as there was no order allowing them to file evidence on affidavit. It is also submitted that as the respondents are plaintiffs in the said proceeding so the learned court below ought not to have accepted the evidence on affidavit filed by the defendant/petitioner and to go ahead with the proceeding by allowing the respondents to cross-examine the witnesses of the defendant/petitioner’s side. By the said petition it was brought to the notice of the learned court below and considering the missing of some orders passed in the said proceeding, the learned court below had rightly passed the order impugned in this revision petition which needs no interference by this court. 8. Considered the submissions of the learned counsels. From the perusal of the impugned order and the order sheets annexed to this petition, it is apparent that the plaintiffs/respondents were fully aware that there were no evidence led by them. The defendant/petitioner had filed their evidence on affidavit of witness and the plaintiffs/respondents further cross examined the witness No. 1 of the petitioner’s side and after cross-examination, the said petition No. 670 was filed with a prayer to allow them to adduce their evidence. The said petition was accordingly allowed without expunging the evidence of the defence side thereby causing prejudice to the present petitioner. 9. On the other hand, the act of the respondents in participating in the said proceeding and the act of cross-examining of the witnesses of the petitioner’s side apparently shows that the respondents have waived their right to file their evidence on affidavit. 9. On the other hand, the act of the respondents in participating in the said proceeding and the act of cross-examining of the witnesses of the petitioner’s side apparently shows that the respondents have waived their right to file their evidence on affidavit. It reveals further from the order that the learned court below never ordered for an enquiry with regard to the missing of the order sheets from the record. 10. In such a situation, the act of cross-examination by the respondents’ side of the witnesses of the petitioner’s side amounts to waiver of the right of the plaintiffs/respondents to adduce their evidence and the learned court below ought not to have passed this order causing prejudice to the present defendant/petitioner. 11. Accordingly, this court set aside the order impugned in this petition and the proceeding before the court below shall start from the stage of further cross examination of the DW 1, Rajani Deka, i.e. the witness of the defendant side. 12. This petition is accordingly disposed of.