IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1199 of 2008 MD. AKBAR & ORS Versus MD. ABDUL HAFIZ & ORS ----------- 2. 26.8.2008 Heard counsel for the parties. In view of the statement made in I.A. No. 4617/2008 the delay of 39 days in filing of this Civil Revision application is condoned. Coming to the merits of this case, it would be found that this Court on an earlier occasion, when a grievance was made by the petitioners, the defendants in the suit, that their evidence had unnecessarily been shut out by the court below by an order dated 23.11.2007, had in the interest of justice set aside that order dated 23.11.2007 and had passed an order dated 18.2.2008 in Civil Revision no. 55 of 2008 operative portion whereof reads as follows:- “In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, order dated 23.11.2007 as well as order dated 6.8.2007 are hereby set aside and the learned court below is directed to give one week time to defendant 2nd set to produce all their 2 witnesses in the suit, whereafter a date should be fixed within one week thereafter for defendants 2nd set to complete arguments on their behalf. Learned court below is also directed to conclude hearing and argument on day to day basis without giving undue adjournment to any of the parties.” Counsel for the petitioners now is again before this Court with a grievance to set aside the impugned order dated 18.3.2008 and his submission is that the court below has committed same jurisdictional error by refusing them to give further time to adduce their both oral and documentary evidence. Mr. Partha Sarthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, would submit that the petitioners were infact within their right to ask for such time because a week’s time as granted by this court would mean seven days clear time, which was not given to them and the impugned order came to be passed before expiry of the period of one week. His emphasis is that of a week’s time as granted by this court in its order dated 3 18.2.2008 would mean a period of clear seven days from the date the petitioners could have started adducing their evidence. In the opinion of this court, such terse and cut and dry interpretation of the petitioners and understanding of his order of this Court dated 18.2.2008 is not only incorrect but appears to be also a deliberate attempt of the petitioners to delay the proceedings as has been noted at length in the impugned order. Mr. Anurag Shukla, counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff- opposite party, however, would submit that he does not want the matter to unnecessarily linger and therefore, on instructions he would submit whatever evidence has to be adduced by the petitioners must be done in one day. He also would submit that the suit is of the year 2000 in which the plaintiffs have already adduced their evidence and in fact 22 witnesses have also been examined on behalf of the defendants and therefore, hearing of the suit including pronouncement of judgment after completion of argument must be completed as was envisaged under the 4 orders of this Court passed way back on 16th January, 2006 in Misc.Appeal No. 281/2001 and reiterated in the order of this Court dated 18.2.2008 passed in C.R.No. 55/2008. Considering the aforementioned submissions this court on the basis of materials on record and in the light of earlier orders dated 16.1.2006 and 18.2.2008 giving an opportunity to the petitioners to complete their evidence, this Court by way of last indulgence would grant the petitioners a further period of one week from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in which they must appear before the court below and make a prayer for continuous hearing for the purpose of leading and completing their evidence on any two continuous days. Whatever evidence within the permissible limits of the Code of Civil Procedure, has to be adduced by the petitioners must be completed in those two days and for if any reason whatsoever the petitioners do not complete their evidence in these two days the court below will close their evidence and would proceed further. The court below is directed to ensure that 5 the judgment after hearing argument both sides is delivered within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. As this Court is convinced that the delay in disposal of the suit has been caused by the petitioners and that they are again asking for time, the petitioners must compensate the loss being suffered by the other opposite party i.e. plaintiffs and to that extent the plaintiffs must be paid a sum of Rs. 5000/- to be paid by the petitioners within one week of the receipt/production of a copy of this order. This application is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions. ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/