IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.926 of 2008 RAM NARESH PRASAD Versus DR. LALLAN PRASAD GUPTA ----------- 2 3.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seems to be aggrieved by an order of the Court below dated 21.5.2008 rejecting the prayer for recall of witnesses. Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Court below ought to have recalled such witnesses to prove certain security deposit receipts of the electricity connection. In the opinion of this Court, the Court below has rightly rejected such an application of the petitioner by recording a finding that the issue involved in the suit is limited as to whether the defendant had defaulted in making payment of arrears of rent or as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree of arrear of rent of Rs. 10,500/- with interest or not in addition to the main relief of eviction as prayed for by the plaintiff. The subject matter of security deposit by the petitioner, tenant for an electricity connection therefore in no way can turn on the main issue of the suit and therefore, the Court below has not committed any material irregularity and/or jurisdictional error by refusing the 2 prayer of the petitioner for recall of the witnesses who were supposed to only be examined for the purposes of proving certain security deposit made by the petitioner with the Electricity Board. In that view of the matter, this civil revision application being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)