IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.164 of 2009 Anand Mahto son of late Gajendra Mahto, resident of village Goha, Police Station Hasanpur, District Samastipur… ….Defendant Ist set/Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Kiran Kumari Devi, 2. Smt. Punam Devi, Both daughters of Ram Krishna Mahto, Residents of village Maldah, Police Station Hasanpur, District Samastipur, …Defendants 2nd set..Opposite Parties Ist Set 3. Sachidanand Mahto son of late Ram Dutta Mahto, 4. Binod Kumar Mahto son of Sachidanand Mahto, 5. Chandra Kala Devi, 6. Gulab Devi, Both daughters of late Ram Dutta Mahto, Opposite Party nos. 3 to 6 are residents of village Pusaho, Police Station Hasanpur, at present Police Station Bithan, District Samastipur, … …Defendant 3rd set/Opposite Party 2nd set 7. Vimlendra Prasad Mahto son of late Tarni Prasad Mahto, 8. Tuna Devi daughter of Bachan Paswan, 9. Rasbati Devi wife of Sitaram Paswan, Opposite Party nos. 7 to 9 are residents of village Goha, Police Station Hasanpur, District Samastipur, … ….Defendant 4th set/Opposite Parties 3rd set, 10. Binda Devi wife of Sri Baleshswar Verma, Resident of village Gangrahour, Mohanpur, Police Station Bakhari, District Begusarai, 11. Ram Bihari Mahto son of Chaturbhuj Mahto, 12. Subodh Kumar Mahto, 13. Manoj Kumar Mahto, 14. Saroj Kumar Mahto, All sons of Ram Bihari Mahto, Opposite Party nos. 11 to 14 are residents of Meghoul, Police Station Meghoul, District Samastipur, …(opposite party nos. 10 to 14—Plaintiffs) … Opposite Parties 4th set 15. Kundan Mahto, 16. Papu Mahto, Both sons of late Gajendra Mahto, 2 Both residents of village Goha, Police Station Hasanpur, District Samastipur, … …Opposite Party nos. 15 to 16…Defendant Ist Set.. …Opposite Parties 5th set 17. Arun Mahto son of Bhagwan Mahto, 18. Md. Salam son of Muslim, 19. Md. Basir son of Maulu, 20. Ram Balak Yadav son of Mushharu Yadav, 21. Tarki Sah son of Lakhan Sah, All residents of village Goha, Police Station Hasanpur, District Samastipur… Defendants 5th set…Opposite Parties 6th set.. …Opposite Parties ----------- 4 10.02.2009 Mr. Uma Shankar Singh No. 2, learned counsel for the petitioner, appears and seeks permission to recuse himself out of this case. Permission is granted. Heard Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh No. 2, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Surya Narayan Roy, learned counsel, appears on behalf of opposite party no. 1 and states that he has filed power on her behalf today itself. Defendant-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.11.2008, passed by the Sub-Judge II, Rossera(Samastipur) in Partition Suit No. 52 of 1997, whereby evidence on behalf of defendant Ist party has been closed. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though on the date fixed the defendant-petitioner could not produce any witness for examination, but still the court below should have granted one indulgence by allowing sufficient time for producing the witness on any other date. The trial court has passed the impugned order dated 12.11.2008 in view of the order dated 21..01.2008 passed by this Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 243 of 2005, whereby this Court had directed to dispose of the Partition Suit concerned within three months. During the course of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner had admitted that thirty one witnesses had already been examined on behalf of the defendant Ist Set-petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. As a result, this civil revision application is dismissed. SC (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)