IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.636 of 2007 Suresh Rai son of Haruni Rai resident of Village and P.O. Mahashi Tole Saharbani P.S. Bibhutipur Dist. Samastipur Plaintiff-Petitioner Versus 1. Mostt. Khakhri Devi W/o Late Tripit Narayan Isser 2. Janardan Isser 3. Baidyanath Isser both sons of Late Tripit Narayan Isser resident of Village and P.O. Maheshi P.S. Bibhutipur Dist. Samastipur 4. Aruni Kumari D/o Late Tripit Narayan Isser W/o Annandi Choudhary resident at P.O. Kale Batashpur P.S. Hasanpur Dist. Samastipur Defendant Ist Parties-Opposite lst Parties 5. Yogendra Isser son of late Ram Karan Isser 6. Krishna Kant Isser @ Chunchun Isser S/o Yogendra Isser resident of Village and P.O. Maheshi P.S. Bibhutipur Dist. Samastipur Defendant 2nd Parties-Opposite 2nd Parties 7. Singsahan Devi W/o late Ramashray Jha resident of Village and P.O. Maheshi P.S. Bibhutipur Dist. Samastipur 8. Chandramani Kumari @ Girish Kumari D/o late Ramashraya Jha W/o Ram Kumar resident of Village and P.O. Bhiraha P.S. Rosera Dist. Samastipur 9. Ranju Kumari D/o late Ramashraya Jha and wife of Shambhu Sharan Jha resident of Village Manaretul P.O. Narhan P.S. Bibhutipur Dist. Samastipur 10. Shambhu Jha son of late Ramashraya Jha resident of Village and P.O. Maheshi P.S. Bibhutipur Dist. Samastipur Defendant 3rd Parties-Opposite 3rd Parties 11. Haruni Rai S/o late Gopi Rai 12. Smt Jageshwrari Devi W/o Haruni Rai resident of Village and P.O. Maheshi P.S. Bibhutipur Dist. Samastipur Defendant 4th Party-Opposite 4th Parties ----------- For the petitioner: Mr Manoj Kumar no.1, Advocate --------- 02 09.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff - petitioner challenging order dated 15.01.2007 passed in Title Suit no. - 2 - 84 of 2002 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) no.2, Rosera by which his evidence was closed. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff- petitioner for declaration of his right, title and possession over the suit land and alternatively for recovery of possession and for other ancillary reliefs. The defendants appeared and contested the suit, whereafter issues were framed. The plaintiff adduced nine witnesses, whereafter on 15.01.2007 on the request of the plaintiff himself his evidence was closed. 4. It transpires that thereafter application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff for recall of the order dated 15.01.2007 and for stay of further proceeding of the suit as he was in jail custody but the said prayer was rejected by the learned court below vide order dated 26.02.2007. It further transpires that thereafter the evidence of the defendants was taken up and was closed and final argument of the suit started but could not be completed due to transfer of the learned Judicial Officer. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 15.01.2007 on his own request and his prayer for stay of the proceeding of the suit was also rejected by the learned court below on 26.02.2007. 6. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. However, the learned court below is directed to expedite - 3 - the disposal the suit without any further delay. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)