IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1613 of 2006 JAHID HUSSAIN @ MD.JAHID HUSSAIN Versus NEMAT HUSSAIN & ORS ----------- 2 13.01.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact, the approach of the court below in closing the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner on the very first day on which the case was called out for hearing is perfunctory, inasmuch as, as a matter of fact after appearance of the defendants and filing of the written statement even issues were not framed. Unfortunately, this aspect of the matter has not been stated anywhere in this Civil Revision application. From reading of the impugned order it transpires that the court below had closed the evidence noticing that the plaintiff-petitioner was not represented before it. Ordinarily, in a suit of the year 2002 such an effort made by the court below cannot be appreciated specially when for the last five years, the suit has remained pending only for preparation of hearing but then if the defendant’s appearance was accepted and ex- parte order was passed in the year 2005 and no issues as claimed by the petitioner was framed, at least the court - 2 - below on being furnished explanation by the plaintiff- petitioner ought to have given one opportunity to him to produce his evidence. It has to be noted that the suit in hand is a suit for partition and therefore shutting out the plaintiff from leading the evidence in effect amount to end of the case for the plaintiff. That being so, the impugned order is set aside and the court below is directed to afford one opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence. The petitioner must begin and complete his evidence within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations and directions this Civil Revision application is disposed of. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)