IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.430 of 2007 Hare Krishna Sharma son of Late Sita Ram Sharma, resident of village Lakhisarai, Purani Bazar, P.S. Lakhisarai, District Lakhisarai…………………………….………Defendant no.1-Petitioner Versus 1. Ramashray Singh son of Late Bisheshwar Singh 2. Mritunjay Kumar 3. Dhananjay Kumar, both sons of Ramashray Singh All residents of village Sabikpur, P.S. Lakhisarai, District Lakhisarai, at present residing at Mohalla Purani Bazar, Bari Dargah, Post Office and P.S. Lakhisarai, District Lakhsiarai. …..Plaintiffs-Opposite party 1st set 4. Rajniti Sharma 5. Raj Narain Sharma, both sons of Hare Krishna Sharma, resident of village Lakhisarai, Purani Bazar, P.S. Lakhisarai, District Lakhisarai. 6. Smt. Shanti Devi wife of late Singheshwar Singh, Daughter of Hare Krishna Sharma resident of village Khurdia (Khuria), P.S. Sheikhpura (Barbigha), District Munger at present District Sheikhpura………………Defendant 1st party-Opposite party 2nd set. 7. Ramanand Prasad Singh son of Late Bisheshwar Singh 8. Manish Kumar son of Ramanand Prasad Singh Both residents of village Sabikpur, P.O. Damodarpur, P.S. and District Lakhisarai.………Defendant 2 party-Opposite party 3rd set 9. Tutsi Sharan Pandit 10. Raghubir Pandit, both sons of late Laxman Pandit 11. Bhikhari Pandit son of Raghubir Mandal 12. Bhola Shankar Pandit son of Sashi Sharan Pandit 13. Raju Pandit 14. Chandan Pandit 15. Kundan Pandit, all sons of Bhola Shankar Pandit 16. Most. Badli Devi wife of Late Hari Pandit 17. Jamun Pandit 18. Kishun Pandit, both sons of late Ganori Pandit 19. Ram Chandra Pandit son of Hari Pandit 2 20. Sikandar Pandit son of Jamun Pandit 21. Radha Pandit 22. Nagru Pandit 23. Bantu Pandit, all sons of Kishun Pandit Opposite party nos.10 and 11 are residents of village Lakhisarai Purani Bazar, P.O.,P.S. and District Lakhisarai. Opposite party nos.9, 12 to 23 are residents of village Mauza Nathar Khagour, Purani Bazar, Lakhisarai, P.O. and District Lakhisarai, at present Mohalla Kalkapar, Neer Saratikal P.O. Asansol, District Bardwan (West Bengal). …..Defendants 3rd party-Opposite party 4th set. For the petitioner : M/s Anil Singh and Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 04/ 19.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant no.1-petitioner challenging order dated 07.11.2006 by which the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) IInd, Lakhisarai rejected his application and refused to allow him to examine witnesses on the point of adverse possession as well as valuation as per the list of witnesses mentioned in earlier application dated 30.04.2004 passed in Title Suit No.04 of 1999. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiffs-opposite party 1st set for declaration of their title over the suit property and also for declaration that sale deed 13.04.1973 was sham, fraudulent, fictitious, manufactured, forged, illegal, void, without consideration and inoperative and according to them Jaya Devi 3 and her descendants did not get any right, title, interest and possession over the suit property and also for declaration that decree in the earlier Title Suit No.95 of 1986 was illegal, without jurisdiction and not binding on the plaintiffs as well as for recovery of possession and permanent injunction etc. The said suit was contested by the defendants whereafter issues were framed, and evidence of the parties started and was finally closed, whereafter the suit is pending for final arguments. 4. It transpires from the facts and circumstances of the case that on 30.04.2004 defendant no.1 filed an application with additional list of witnesses, which was rejected on 11.05.2004. Thereafter another application was filed on 28.05.2004 to get the witnesses of the aforesaid additional list in question dated 30.04.2004 examined, but the said application was also rejected by the learned court below on 03.07.2004. It also transpires that the said order of the learned trial court was not challenged. 5. As per the claim of the petitioner an application was much thereafter filed by him on 13.09.2006 under Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for the sake of brevity) to take evidence of the witnesses as per the list included in the earlier application dated 30.04.2004. The said application has been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 07.11.2006 directing the parties to be present for arguments on 14.11.2006. 4 6. It is quite apparent that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances there was no occasion for the learned trial court to entertain such frivolous application filed by defendant no.1- petitioner in which although Order XVIII of the Code was mentioned, but even the rules under the said Order XVIII of the Code was not mentioned nor the same was applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and hence it is quite apparent that the said application was filed merely to further delay the disposal of the title suit. 7. In the aforesaid facts and 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. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )