IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.52 of 2008 SRI JAGDEO RAI, Son of Late Ram Dayal Rai, resident of Village- Phulia Tola, P.S. Phulwarisarif, District- Patna....................Petitioner (Plaintiff-Respondent). Versus SRI LALLAN RAI, Son of Late Sita Ram Rai, resident of Village- Danapur Bhusaula, P.S. Phulwarisarif, District- Patna...............Opposite Party(Defendant-Appellant). ---------- For the petitioner: Mr. Indu Bhushan Prasad, Advocate. For the Opposite Party:M/S. Prem Kr. Verma & Sunil Srivastava, Advocates. --------- 2. 28.10.2009. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent- petitioner challenging order dated 15.12.2007 by which the learned Fast Track Court No. III, Patna, rejected his application for adducing oral evidence on the point of rebuttal as directed by this Court vide order dated 29.06.2006 passed in C. R. No. 2110 of 2005(Annexure-1). 3.. This matter arises out of Title Eviction Suit No. 05 of 1997 which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent-petitioner for eviction of the sole defendant-appellant-opposite party from the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent and for realization of arrears of rent as well as for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The suit was decreed on contest, against which the defendant-appellant–opposite party filed Title Eviction Appeal No. 28 of 2000 and during its pendency the defendant filed an application for admitting voter list and sale deed as additional evidence which was rejected by the learned court of appeal below. 5.. The said order was challenged by the defendant in C.R. No. 2110 of 2005 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 29.06.2006 2 directing the lower appellate court to take the said two documents as additional evidence on being duly filed. Liberty was also given to the plaintiff-respondent-opposite party to have a right to rebut the same. A further, direction was given to the court below to expedite the hearing of the title appeal. 6. It transpires that in compliance of the said order of this Court dated 29.06.2006, the defendant-appellant produced the Voter list and the sale deed which were marked as Ext.11 and Ext. I respectively on 10.10.2006, whereafter the respondent-plaintiff-respondent was required to adduce evidence in rebuttal. Accordingly, the plaintiff-respondent filed an application on 13.11.2006 producing some documents in rebuttal which was allowed by the learned court below on 08.03.2007 and the said documents were marked as Exts. 6,7 and 8 whereafter evidence of the parties were closed and the title appeal was fixed for argument. 7. It may be noted that the said order by which after admitting the evidence as exhibits the case was fixed for argument, was not challenged by the plaintiff-respondent and only when the argument in the title appeal had been substantially made that an application dated 01.07.2007 was filed by the plaintiff-respondent for allowing him to lead oral evidence in rebuttal. This application has been rejected by the learned court of appeal below vide order dated 15.12.2007 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 8. From the above mentioned facts of this case, it is quite apparent that the chances allowed by this Court were already availed by the plaintiff-respondent and the evidence of the parties having been closed the date was fixed for final argument in the eviction appeal vide order dated 3 08.03.2007 which was never challenged. Furthermore order passed by this Court on 29.06.2006 was duly complied by the plaintiff-respondent on 10.10.2006, whereafter the defendant-appellant complied the said order on 13.11.2006. Hence there was no occasion for the defendant-appellant to raise the matter again on 01.07.2007 when substantial arguments had already been made in the title appeal on the direction of this Court to the learned appellate court to expedite the hearing of the title appeal. 9. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. U.K. (S.N.Hussain,J)