IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1231 of 2009 ---- Ravindra Prasad @ Ravindra Singh S/O Ram Kishun Prasad, Proprietor Parchun Shop, R/O Mohalla- Bhraoper (in front of Mamta Restaurant), P.S. Laheri, District-Nalanda. -Defendant-Petitioner. Versus 1. Abdul Rajik 2. Md. Khalid Both sons of Abdul Khalik Resident of Mohalla- Chajju Naman, Town- Biharsharif, P.S. Bihar, District-Nalanda. -- Plaintiff-Opposite Party. ----- For the petitioner : Mr. Anil Chandra, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ---- 03. 14.09.2009 This civil revision is being heard at this stage at the instance of learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of the defendant-petitioner challenging order dated 02.06.2009 by which the learned Munsif, Nalanda has rejected his petition for framing additional issue: “Whether advance of Rs.25000.00 was adjusted in rent before filing of the present suit or not?” 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties for eviction of the sole defendant from the suit premises claiming to be their tenant on the ground of personal necessity only. In the said suit, the defendant appeared and contested, whereafter issues were framed and evidence were led and after completion of the evidence of the parties, it was closed and the case was fixed for argument. 4. It appears that only thereafter the aforesaid application for adding one more issue was filed on behalf of the defendant-petitioner - 2 - which has been rejected by the learned court below vide order dated 02.06.2009 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. As stated by learned counsel of the defendant-petitioner, the suit for eviction is only on the ground of personal necessity and not on the ground of default in payment of rent, nor any relief regarding arrears of rent has been raised. In the said circumstances, the said issue regarding advance of rent was completely alien to the proceeding of the eviction suit and for that the defendant may file a separate suit for recovery, if the said advance has been paid and any amount out of it is due with the plaintiffs. 6. Furthermore, when the suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity is fixed for argument after completion of the evidence, there was no occasion for the defendant to file such an application as, if he wanted, he could have raised that issue at the initial stage before framing of the issues. In the said circumstances, the said procedure adopted by the defendant appears to be only to delay the disposal of the suit. 7. In the said facts and circumstances, 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 with a direction to the learned court below to expedite the disposal of the eviction suit without giving any undue adjournment to any of the parties. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)