IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1691 of 2008 SMT. SHANTI DEVI Versus SURENDRA PRASAD & ORS With C.R. No.2092 of 2007 SMT. SHANTI DEVI Versus SURENDRA PRASAD & ORS. ------- 4 21/10/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In C.R. 2092/2007 the petitioner’s grievance against the impugned order dated 21.8.2007 refusing to consolidate of hearing of Title Suit no. 94 of 2002 with L.A. case no. 1/2003-04 (5/2005) seems to be quite genuine. In the opinion of this Court when the issue regarding title and ownership of plot no. 122 of khata No. 97 in mauza- Harbanshpur is subject matter of Title Suit No. 94 of 2002, presently pending before the Sub.Judge-III, Barh and a reference as with regard to the same plot has also been made by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act as would be apparent from the letter of the Land Acquisition Officer, Patna dated 2.11.2005 to the Court of Special Judge, Land Acquistion-Cum- Sub.Judge-I, Barh, Patna, it would serve 2 ends of justice if both the cases could be heard by the same Court in view of the fact that the case under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act has to be decided by a designated Court, i.e, the court of Sub.Judge-I. The other case being Title Suit No. 94 of 2002 would thus stand transferred from the Court of Sub.Judge-III, Barh to the Court of Sub.Judge-I, who is directed to dispose of both the cases side by side. It is, however, made clear that counsel for the petitioner has conveyed to this Court that the petitioner being plaintiff in Title Suit No. 94 of 2002 would not require to lead any further evidence beyond what would be led in Title Suit No. 94 of 2002. In other words, there would not be delay caused by the petitioner by tagging up the case under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Coming to the second case, i.e, C.R. No. 1691 of 2008, for the reasons mentioned in I.A. No. 6098 of 2008, the delay in filing of this civil revision application is condoned. On merits this Court would find that 3 the impugned order dated 12.1.2008 rejecting prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner to recall D.W.1 can be allowed only if she compensates the defendants and accordingly prayer of recalling D.W.1 is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,500/- to be paid by the petitioner to the defendant no.1 within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that once defendant no.1 appears for his further cross-examination on any fixed date by the court below, he must be cross-examined by the petitioner on the same date, failing which the opportunity being given by this Court would stand recalled. The case will be transferred to the court of Sub.Judge-I only after cross- examination of the D.W.1. With the aforementioned observations/ directions both applications are disposed of. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar