IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2 of 2008 ----------- 1. Janako Devi, wife of Belas Choudhary, resident of village Basdilla, P.S. Hathua, District Gopalganj 2. Monako Devi, wife of late Shiv Nath Choudhary, resident of village Pakhopali, P.S. Thawe, District Gopalganj. …..Defendants-Petitioners. Versus 1. Lakman Choudhary, son of late Kishundeo Choudhary 2. Phuljharia Devi, daughter late Kishundeo Choudhary, Both residents of village Mahuari, P.O. Mohammadpur, P.S. Siwan Mufassil, District Siwan. (Plaintiffs) 3. Chandeshwar Chaudhary 4. Radha Mohan Chaudhary 5. Binod Chaudhary 6. Om Prakash Chaudhary All 3 to 6 are sons of late Hari Chaudhary 7. Sona Chaudhary 8. Muni Chaudhary 9. Urmila Chaudhary 10. Buchchi Devi, all 7 to 10 are daughters of late Hari Chaudhary, All 3 to 10 are resident of village Mahuari, P.O. Mohammadpur, P.S. Siwan, Muffasil, District Siwan (Heirs of defendant no.1). 11. Dinanath Chaudhary 12. Ramnath Chaudhary, both sons of Sharamdeo Chaudhary, resident of village Mahuari, P.O. Mohammadpur, P.S. Siwan Muffasil, District Siwan (Defendants 2 and 3). …. Opposite Parties ---- For the Petitioners : M/s Ram Chandra Singh and Jitendra Kumar Singh, Advocates. For Opposite Parties : None. ------- 03/ 26.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendants- petitioners challenging order dated 25.09.2007, by which learned Subordinate Judge-VII, Siwan rejected their application dated 28.08.2007 for allowing them to produce their evidence and held that in view of order dated 16.04.2007 passed by the High Court in Civil Revision No. 656 of 2005 extension of time cannot be granted by the trial court, rather if the High Court feels it can extend the time under the provision of 2 section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. This matter arises out of Title Suit No. 237 of 1997, which was filed by plaintiffs-opposite parties no.1 and 2 for partition of the suit land as well as for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was contested by the defendants, who appeared and filed their pleadings, whereafter issues were framed and evidences were led. 4. It transpires that only thereafter defendants no. 4 to 5 (petitioners) filed an application before the learned trial court for allowing them to adduce their evidence, but the said application was rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 10.02.2005, which was challenged by the defendants-petitioners in Civil Revision No. 656 of 2005. 5. The said civil revision was allowed by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.04.2007 setting aside the impugned order of the trial court and directing it to allow defendants no. 4 and 5 to produce their three witnesses and, thereafter, to proceed for hearing arguments of the parties. The said defendants were also directed to start producing their witnesses within four weeks from the date of the said order in the court below and ensure that all their witnesses are examined within a further period of six weeks from the said order and a cost of Rs.1000.00 was also levied. 6. It transpires that much after the said order dated 16.04.2007, the defendants-petitioners filed an application dated 28.08.2007 in the learned court below for allowing them to produce their witnesses. The said application has been rejected by the learned court 3 below by the impugned order dated 25.09.2007 on the basis of specific order of this Court dated 16.04.2007. 7. However, challenging the said order of the learned court below, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that although the High Court allowed the earlier civil revision by its order dated 16.04.2007, but the said order was not communicated to the learned court below on 19.07.2007, and he filed an application on 20.07.2007. It is also claimed that when no heed was paid to the said application by the learned court below, the defendants-petitioners filed another application on 28.08.2007 as due to the said reason neither any application could be filed nor any witnesses could be produced within the time prescribed by this Court by the aforesaid order. 8. It is quite apparent from order dated 16.04.2007 passed in Civil Revision No. 656 of 2005 ( Annexure 1) that the said order was passed in presence of learned counsel for both the parties and by the said order defendants-petitioners were directed to start producing their witnesses within four weeks from the date of the said order in the court below and that four weeks’ time ended on 14.05.2007. Furthermore, defendants-petitioners were also directed to ensure that all their witnesses are examined within a further period of six week from the said date and hence the said period also expired on 28.06.2007, but although defendants-petitioners were fully aware of the said order of this Court, they did not take any step for compliance of the said order within the period prescribed in the said order of this Court, rather they filed the application in the learned court below much thereafter. 4 9. From the copy of order dated 16.04.2007 passed by a Bench of this Court, it is quite apparent that the petitioners had received the certified copy of the said order of this Court on 04.05.2007, hence due to that reason also they cannot plead ignorance because of non- communication of the said order in the learned court below and they themselves could have produced the certified copy of this court’s order in the court below. Furthermore, even the cost was not paid either within the time prescribed by this Court or even thereafter. 10. Although neither a copy of the application dated 20.07.2007 said to have been filed by the defendants-petitioners in the court below has been annexed to the Civil Revision nor there is any mention of the said application in the impugned order whereas a copy of application dated 28.08.2007 has been annexed to this civil revision as Annexure 2, in which a mere mention has been made. The said application dated 28.08.2007 has been fully considered by the learned court below and even if it is presumed that the application was filed by the defendants-petitioners in the court below on 20.07.2007 the same was also much beyond the period prescribed by this Court. 11. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)