IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1870 of 2006 SHATRUGHAN SINGH & ORS Versus MOST.RADHILA KUAR & ANR ----------- 2 12/9/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court the impugned order closing the evidence of the defendants, petitioners does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, however, would submit that the interest of justice would require that the petitioners would be given a chance to contest the suit as closure of the evidence in a suit relating to the family property, would cause real prejudice to the petitioners. This Court cannot approve conduct of the defendants, petitioners who has not even cared to comply the order of the court below which had earlier given opportunity to contest the suit after depositing the cost. It is, thus, clear that the default on the part of the defendants, petitioners is writ large on the face of records. 2 That being so, if the defendants, petitioners now want to complete their evidence they must pay cost to the plaintiffs to at least partly compensate loss of time which the plaintiffs had suffered from 2nd September, 2004 when the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed. That being so, the defendant, petitioner is directed to pay cost of Rs. 5,000/- (in addition to the cost of the court below) within a period of three months. The court bellow is further directed to ensure that once the petitioner starts adducing evidence, the same must be completed within a period of three months so that this old suit get disposed of expeditiously. With the above observation/ direction this application is disposed of. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar