IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.344 of 2009 1. Yamuna Prasad Singh @ Yamuna Mahto, 2. Rajendra Prasad, both sons of late Mahabir Mahto, resident of mohalla Khandpar, Sheikhpura, P.O. & P.S. Sheikhpura, District Sheikhpura, …Plaintiffs/Petitioners versus 1. Surendra Prasad son of lage Mahabir Mahto, resident of mohalla Khandpar, Sheikhpura, P.O. & P.S. Sheikhpura, District Sheikhpura, 2. Subhadra Devi wife of Lakhan Mahto, resident of mohalla Khandpar, Sheikhpura, P.O. & P.S. Sheikhpura, District Sheikhpura, …Defendants/Opposite Party Ist Set 3. The State of Bihar through Collector Sheikhpura, District Sheikhpura, 4. The Executive Engineer, Division Lakhisarai, at P.O., Lakhisarai, District Lakhisarai(Then Munger), 5. The S.D.O., P.W.D. Subdivision Sheikhpura, District Sheikhpura(Then Munger), 6. The Junior Engineer, P.W.D. Subdivision Sheikhpura, at P.O. Sheikhpura, District Sheikhpura(Then Munger), …Defendants…Opposite Parties 2nd Set For the Petitioners: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate … 2 06.03.2009 I.A. No. 1356 of 2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. For the reasons stated in this application, the delay in filing the present civil revision application is hereby condoned, and, thus, I.A. No. 1356 of 2009 stands allowed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners upon the civil revision application. - 2 - The plaintiffs petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 08.08.2008 passed by the Sub-Judge I, Sheikhpura in Title Suit No. 13 of 1999, whereby it has allowed the prayer of the defendants opposite parties to cross-examine five witnesses, who were earlier examined in 2007 itself by the petitioners, but they could not be cross-examined at that time. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order impugned seriously prejudices the case of the plaintiffs and this was merely the tactics of the defendants to delay the proceedings of the suit. The trial court on consideration of the rival submissions has allowed the prayer for cross-examination of the plaintiffs witnesses by the defendants subject to payment of cost of Rs. 500/- in the interest of justice. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order impugned warranting interference of this Court in its discretionary revisional jurisdiction. As a result, this civil revision application is dismissed. However, since it is a case of the year 1999, the court below is directed to fix date(s) for such cross-examination and it shall not grant any further adjournment to the parties on any - 3 - ground save and except the grounds, which may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. SC (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)