IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.268 of 2008 ---- Anil Prakash Sinha @ Anil Prakash, son of Shri Purnendu Narayan Sinha, Resident of Mohalla Rajiva Sadan, 67/E, Rajendra Nagar, Road No.11, P.S. Kadamkuan, District-Patna. -- Plaintiff-petitioner. Versus Ravindra Kumar Srivastava, IAS, Managing Director, National Co- OP Consumers Federation of India Ltd. (NCCF), “Deepali” (5th floor), 92, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110 019. -- Defendant-Opposite party. ----- For the petitioner : Mr. Naresh Dikshit with Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Miss Kalpana and Mr. Kunal Tiwary,Advocates. For the opposite party: None. ----- 04. 16.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the sole plaintiff-petitioner challenging order dated 24.11.2007 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-II, Patna allowed the application of the sole defendant-opposite party for calling the concerned file of the inquiry from the office of the present Collector, Patna-cum- Administrator Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board for being considered in Title Suit No.178 of 1999. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the petitioner seeking damage of Rs.50,000.00 from the defendant who in the capacity of Managing Director passed order dated 14.08.1998 directing that the covered cement platform at Narkatia Ganj and 10 shops constructed for marketing Board Betia be constructed once again and cost of the same be recovered from the petitioner. The said suit was contested by the petitioner, whereafter issues were framed and evidence of the - 2 - plaintiff started and was concluded. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only at this stage the opposite party filed an application on 18.06.2007 for calling the concerned file of inquiry from the office of the present Collector, Patna-cum-Administrator Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board on the basis of which the aforesaid order was passed by the opposite party. The said application has been allowed by the learned court below vide its order dated 24.11.2007 against which the instant civil revision has been filed. 5. Although learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the aforesaid order of the learned court below but it is quite apparent that the said file concerned the subject matter of the suit and the court had itself felt that it was necessary for proper adjudication of the case. In the said circumstances, the learned court below was quite justified in calling for the said file vide its impugned order. 6. Furthermore, since the evidence of the petitioner has been closed it will be open for the petitioner to produce any witness which he wants to produce contesting the contents of the said file, but he must conclude his evidence within one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 7. So far the question of delay being caused at the instance of the opposite party is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on more than one occasion case has been unnecessarily adjourned merely for filing his written statement at the - 3 - early stage. In the said circumstances as well as the suit being more than a decade old, the learned court below is directed to expedite the disposal of the suit without giving any undue adjournment to any of the parties so that the suit is decided expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observations, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)