IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.771 of 2006 M/S PRADEEP SAFE & STEEL WORKS, PUNNA Versus SHREE PUNNA MILLS @ SHREE PUNNA MILLS ----------- 3 7.11.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, when an earlier prayer of the petitioner for re-opening of the evidence was rejected by the Court below by an order dated 16.2.2005 and also affirmed by this Court by dismissing the civil revision application, the same prayer could not have been renewed by the petitioner on 15.12.2005 in a different manner by seeking permission to adduce evidence by exhibiting a few documents and admitting them in evidence. The Court below therefore, has rightly shown its helplessness in the matter as the issue of closure of evidence of the petitioner stands concluded by the earlier interparte order of this Court. The Court below infact had rightly rejected such prayer of the petitioner for adducing those documentary evidence which were well within the knowledge of the petitioner right from the beginning of the hearing of the suit pending since 1994. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of this Court in the case of Subhchandra Jha Vs. Bihar School of Yoga Monghyr & Anr. reported in 1983 PLJR 699 is wholly misconceived 2 inasmuch as in that case, the plaintiff’s documentary evidence were taken into consideration after closure of the hearing of the suit and this Court without interfering in that order had only given liberty to the defendant to adduce any evidence in rebuttal. This Court fails to understand as to how the ratio of the said judgment would be in any way applicable to the facts of this case. This court is also satisfied that the repeated applications filed by the petitioner on the same issue of leading further evidence is only a time consuming device aimed to delay the disposal of an eviction suit. Normally such filibusterous attitude of the petitioner was capable of not only being moved seriously by this court by imposing an exemplary cost against him but then this court would take a lenient view by merely recording its disapproval to reprehensible conduct of the petitioner. That being so, this court would dismiss this Civil Revision Application with a direction to the court below to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)