JUDGMENT : The present revisional application is directed against an order dated 16th November 2017 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sealdah in Title Suit No. 17 of 2001 refusing to recall the order dated 28th August 2017. 2. The reason for rejection of the application filed by the petitioners is that since this Court has directed that the title suit be disposed of within a specified period, the application cannot be entertained. 3. I am amazed whether that can be a reason for rejection of the application containing substantive reliefs. My attention is drawn to order dated 28th August 2017, wherefrom it appears that the petitioners were cross-examining the Survey Commissioner, who could not appear on the said date. The Survey Commissioner was appointed as the plaintiffs’ witness and, naturally, the defendants/petitioners were cross-examining him. Astonishingly, the court closed the evidence of the Survey Commissioner and directed the petitioners to adduce evidence. 4. It is really surprising that because of no laches on the part of the petitioners the court has shut the door of cross-examination and took away the valuable right conferred upon them under the law. If the witness is keeping himself away from facing the cross-examination, the court may expunge his evidence but cannot penalize the defendant, who is all along diligent in proceeding with the cross-examination. 5. Since the Survey Commissioner was appointed and a report is on record, this Court, therefore, feels that the trial court should have allowed the application filed by the petitioners recalling the said order for the reasons stated herein above. 6. Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, submits that steps should be taken to bring the Survey Commissioner for cross-examination by the petitioners and prays for a time limit within which the cross-examination should be completed. 7. In view of the above, the order impugned is, thus, set aside. The application filed by the petitioners stands allowed. As a consequence whereof, the order dated 28th August 2017 is hereby recalled. 8. The trial court is directed to fix a date for further cross-examination of the Survey Commissioner, which shall not exceed beyond two weeks from the date of communication of this order and such date shall be fixed in presence of the parties or their respective counsels. 9. 8. The trial court is directed to fix a date for further cross-examination of the Survey Commissioner, which shall not exceed beyond two weeks from the date of communication of this order and such date shall be fixed in presence of the parties or their respective counsels. 9. On the date, so fixed, the plaintiffs/opposite parties shall ensure that the Survey Commissioner appears before the court and the defendants/petitioners shall complete the cross-examination. The court shall not grant adjournment to either of the parties except under unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances. 10. In the event the Survey Commissioner decline to appear for cross-examination, the trial court shall not treat his evidence on record nor shall consider the report at the time of deciding the main suit. 11. With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of. 12. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.