IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.664 of 2006 HARI NANDAN PRASAD Versus SMT.SUSHILA DEVI & ORS ----------- 6 21.10.2008 Heard Mr. Shiv Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the grievance of the petitioner seems to be correct inasmuch as if there was some circumstance beyond his control leading to non- appearance on 10.3.2006, which was in continuation to the earlier compelling circumstances as would be found from the order dated 10.3.2006, the Court below ought to have not closed the evidence and in fact should have allowed the defendant to complete his evidence by giving one more opportunity. That in fact was not the end of the matter. This Court on perusal of certified photocopy of the impugned order has found that initially the Court on 10.3.2006 has passed a very short and cryptic order which was subsequently penned through and thereafter, a very long order has been written though with the same conclusion. Such practice is definitely not conducive to the administration of justice and would always give an impression of some foul play. With the aforementioned observations, this 2 application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the Court below is directed to give at least one more opportunity to the petitioner to complete his evidence. The counsel for the petitioner assures this Court that the defendant/petitioner will complete his evidence within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and would not give any further adjournment for adducing his evidence. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is allowed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)