IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.163 of 2008 ----------- Mathura Sah alias Mathura Prasad Sah, son of Sheo Prasad Sah, Resident of village Shri Rampur, P.O. Noniadeeh, P.S. Raxaul, District East Champaran. …Defendant no.2-Petitioner. Versus 1. Laxmi Sah, son of late Anurag Sah 2. Sri Lal Sah, son of late Anurag Sah 3. Gopal Sah, son of late Anurag Sah 4. Motilal Sah, son of late Anurag Sah 5. Jhoti Lal Sah, son of Anurag Sah 6. Mohan Sah, son of late Mangal Sah 7. Bunnilal Sah, son of late Mangal Sah 8. Prasad Sah, son of late Khubbi Lal Sah All are residents of village Sri Rampur, P.O. Noniadeeh, P.S. Raxaul Distrtict East Champaran. …Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties 1st set. 9. Sheo Prasad Sah, son of late Beni Sah 10. Dwarika Sah, son of Sheo Prasad Sah 11. Ashok Sah, son of Sheo Prasad Sah All are residents of village Shri Rampur, P.O. Noniadeep, P.S. Raxaul District East Champaran. ….Defendant Ist set-Opposite Parties 2nd set. 12. Ratan Sah, son of Bhim Sah 13. Pukar Sah, son of Tapa Sah 14. Dasai Sah, son of Yadu Sah All are residents of village Sri Rampur, P.O. Noniadeeh, P.S. Raxaul, District East Champaran. …Defendants 2nd set-Opposite Parties 3rd set. ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar No. III, Advocate. For the Opp. Parties : None. ------ 04/ 17.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant no.2- petitioner challenging order dated 01.11.2007, by which the learned Subordinate Judge-IV, East Champaran, rejected his prayer for producing further witnesses and closed his evidence in Partition Suit No. 84 of 1991. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs- 2 opposite parties 1st set for partition of their moiety share in the suit land, detailed in Schedule-2 at the foot of the plaint and other ancillary reliefs. The defendants including the petitioner appeared and contested the suit, whereafter issues were framed. 4. It appears that the evidence were led by the plaintiffs and also by the defendants, which after completion were closed as far back as on 19.01.2004. It further appears that an application dated 02.02.2005 was filed on behalf of the defendant- petitioner stating that the defendant was not examined as a witness and hence an opportunity be given for his examination. The said application was allowed by the learned court below vide order dated 18.06.2005 and earlier order dated 19.01.2004 was recalled for that purpose. It further transpires that in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 18.06.2005, the defendant was examined as a D.W. after about two years i.e. on 21.05.2007. Thereafter, no witness was examined. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that about four months thereafter the defendant moved before the trial court for adjournment of the suit fixed for hearing, which was allowed vide order dated 14.09.2007 on a cost of Rs.100.00, which was deposited by the defendant on 24.09.2007. However, on 24.09.2007 itself the plaintiffs-opposite parties filed an application in the trial court for closing the evidence of the defendant in view of the specific order passed by that Court earlier and also that the defendant has been examined as a witness as far back as on 21.05.2007. Although a rejoinder was filed by the 3 defendant on 01.10.2007 to the application of the plaintiffs, but the learned court below, vide its order dated 01.11.2007 closed the evidence of the defendant. Against the said order, the instant civil revision has been filed. 6. Although learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the said order of the learned court below on various grounds, but it is quite apparent that the evidence of the defendant had been closed as far back as on 19.01.2004. However, in the ends of justice and for proper adjudication of the suit, the learned trial court allowed the defendant’s application vide order dated 18.06.2005 for examination of the defendant as a witness (as per paragraph no.6 of the civil revision). 7. In view of the aforesaid order, the defendant was allowed to examine him as a witness but he took about two years in deposing himself, which was ultimately done on 21.05.2007. However, even thereafter no step was taken for about four months, whereafter the matter was finally clarified on the application of the plaintiffs dated 24.09.2007 by way of the impugned order dated 01.11.2007, by which the defendant’s evidence was finally closed, by the learned trial court. 8. It further transpires that the defendant-petitioner is dilly dallying the matter and due to his attitude the suit has been delayed and is pending since the last 18 years. It is also apparent that the defendant-petitioner is trying to take undue advantage of the leniency of the learned court below, which has allowed about two years’ time for his deposition although the evidence of the 4 defendant was closed much earlier in January, 2004 itself. 9. In the aforesaid 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 suit without any further delay. MPS/ ( S.N. Hussain, J. )