IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.28 of 2007 ---- Laxman Pathak son of Late Srikant Pathak, Resident of Village- Jagatpur, P.O.-Jagatpur, Tole-Marar, P.S.- Rahika, District-Madhubani (Bihar). -- Plaintiff-petitioner. Versus 1. Nabo Narain Pathak son of Late Yadu Nath Pathak, 2. Baidyanath Pathak son of Late Radhakant Pathak, 3. Nagendra Pathak son of Late Kamla Kant Pathak, 4. Bhishamvar Pathak son of Late Madhusudhan Pathak, All are residents of village-Jagatpur, Tole-Marar, P.O.-Jagatpur, P.S.- Rahika, District-Madhubani (Bihar). --Defendants 1st Party-Opposite 1st Party. 5. Hari Kant Pathak son of Late Srikant Pathak, Resident of village-Jagatpur, Tole-Marar, P.O.-Jagatpur, P.S. Rahika, District-Madhubani. -- Defendant 2nd Party-Opposite 2nd party. 6. Somnath Mishra son of Late Purandhar Mishra, Resident of village-Jagatpur, Tole-Marar, P.O. Jagatpur, P.S.- Rahika, District-Madhubani. -- Defendant 3rd Party-opposite 3rd party. ---- For the petitioner : Mr. Shashi Nath Jha, Advocate For the opposite party : None. ---- 11. 22.06.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the opposite parties in spite of valid service of notice upon them. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff challenging order dated 22.11.2006 passed in Title Suit No.12 of 2000 (13 of 2004) by which the learned Munsif, Madhubani rejected the petitioner’s petition dated 03.11.2006 (Annexure-2) for recalling order dated 02.11.2006 (Annexure-1) by which the learned Munsif had discharged D.W.4 as witness in the suit because learned counsel for the plaintiff did not appear for his further cross-examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff was busy in the shradh ceremony of a member of his family due to - 2 - which he could not come to court to instruct his counsel on the said date, i.e. 02.11.2006, although on the earlier dates, his counsel was regularly present in the court. He further submits that immediately after order dated 02.11.2006 was passed on the same date learned counsel for the petitioner moved before the court for recall of the said order and on refusal, he filed a petition to that effect on 03.11.2006 which has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also avers that evidence of the defendants’ witnesses was going on when the order of stay was passed by this court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that one chance should be given to the plaintiff as he was prevented due to genuine reasons from appearing on the said date. In the said circumstances, this civil revision is allowed, order dated 22.11.2006 passed by the learned court below is set aside and the learned court below is directed to give one chance to the plaintiff for cross-examining D.W.4, but the plaintiff must cross- examine D.W.4 on the same day which is fixed by the learned court below. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)