IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2053 of 2008 BISWANARH SAH & ANR Versus JANAKI DEVI & ANR ----------- 2 8/12/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. From perusal of relevant order sheet it becomes clear that prayer made by the plaintiff for recalling the order dated 6.9.2007, whereby and whereunder, her evidence have been closed, was recalled on 6.2.2008 and thereafter witnesses of the plaintiff was being examined on 19.2.2008, 21.2.2008 and 3.3.2008. Some how on 11.3.2008 lawyer for the defendant-petitioner on account of lack of instruction, which is said to be on account of illness of the defendant- petitioner, could not remain present and on 20th March the Court had not only closed evidence of the plaintiff but also of the defendant on the impression created by the counsel for the defendant that he had no instruction. Counsel for the petitioner submits that actually between 11.3.2008 and 20.3.2008 the petitioner was seriously ill and as such he could not remain present. 2 He would further submit that if in a suit of the year 2003 the petitioner was given certain accommodation granting recall of order of closure of the evidence of the plaintiff, similar approach ought to have been adopted even in the case of the defendants when in fact they were supposed to begin their evidence only on 20th March, 2008. It is true that the Courts are not supposed to be over indulgent to the parties but at the same time in the facts of the present case it cannot be said that laches on the part of the petitioners were so telling that at least one clear date could not have been given keeping in view that till 20th March, 2008 cross- examination of the plaintiff’s witness had not been completed, on that day plaintiff’s witness who was under process of cross examination was also not present. That being so, this Court is satisfied that the court below had acted hurriedly in closing evidence of the defendants. This Court would accordingly set aside the impugned order and direct 3 the court below to allow the petitioners to complete their evidence which they must be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In case there would be any failure on the part of the petitioners, the court below will be at liberty to proceed ahead without giving any further indulgence to the petitioners. With the aforesaid observation/direction this application is allowed only to the extent indicated above. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar