IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.627 of 2009 MD. RAYEES, S/O LATE SK.HUSSAINEE, R/O MOHALLA-KHALIFABAGH SAHMARKET, P.S.-KOTWALI, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. …………PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER. Versus 1. MD.SAMSAD ALAM @ MD.SAMSAD, S/O LATE SK.HUSSAINEE @ MD.HUSSAINEE, R/O MOHALLA- SAHMARKET KHALIFABAGH, P.S.-KOTWALI, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. ………DEFENDANT 1ST PARTY/O.Ps. 2. MD. JALILUDDIN, S/O LATE MD. AMIN. 3. BIBI RAYEESA @ BIBI RAYEESHAN BANU, W/O MD. JALILUDDIN SL. NO. 2 AND 3 ARE RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- SAHMARKET KHALIFABAGH, P.S.-KOTWALI, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. ………DEFENDANT 2ND PARTY/O.Ps. ----------- 2 22.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision application has been filed by the plaintiff against order dated 6.2.2009 passed by the learned Munsif-IInd, Bhagalpur in Title Suit No. 22 of 2005 by which the evidence of PW-4 has been expunged by the learned court below on the ground that since last many dates he has not been produced for his further cross- examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cross-examination of PW-4 started from 20.3.2008 and he was subjected to lengthy cross-examination on many dates. He further submits that PW-4 is a busy practicing lawyer of Bhagalpur court itself, therefore, the defendants’ counsel has adopted a harassing attitude by subjecting him to lengthy cross- - 2 - examination and hence, he is not acceding to the request of the plaintiff-petitioner to appear further in the case for his further cross- examination. Therefore, in the ends of justice the learned court below should have summoned PW- 4 directly for his appearance for completing his evidence or should have allowed at least some more time to the plaintiff-petitioner for his production for further cross-examination and for completing his evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to evidence of PW-4 recorded in the case so far, which is annexed as Annexure-3, from which it appears that PW-4 has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination. In the circumstances, this court feels it proper that one more attempt should be made for completion of his evidence. In the circumstances, this application is fit to be disposed of with a direction to the learned court below to fix up a firm date, within one week from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, for appearance of PW-4 for his further cross- examination on request of the plaintiff, or in compliance to summons which may be issued by the - 3 - court to him directly and on which date the cross-examination of the PW-4 shall commence and shall proceed on day to day basis and his evidence will be completed. In case, the defendants counsel does not cross-examine the PW-4 on the date fixed that shall be treated as refusal by the defendants to cross-examine the PW-4 and his evidence shall be closed. The learned court below shall not grant any adjournment in the matter to any party and shall proceed with the cross-examination of the PW-4 on the date fixed and onwards on day to day basis and complete the same. With the above observations and directions, this revision application is disposed of. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)