IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1105 of 2008 ARJUN PRASAD KHETAN Versus SURJUG MODI ----------- 2. 4.8.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. The approach of the court below in closing the evidence of the petitioner, the defendant, seems to be quite mechanical inasmuch as it appears that the defendant had started adducing evidence and had also examined three witnesses, the last one being on 6.5.2008 as has been stated in paragraph 6 of the civil revision application. In that view of the matter, the court below ought to have not acted in haste in closing the evidence of the petitioner. It is true that on account of delay caused by the petitioner in examining the evidence of the plaintiff- opposite party has been caused to some sort of inconvenience and harassment. Counsel for the petitioner realizing this position himself offers to pay a cost of Rs. 4,000/- to the plaintiff- opposite party, so that he may be in a position to examine his remaining two witnesses in a period of one month. 2 Considering the interest of justice as also the aforementioned mechanical approach of the court below, this Court would set aside the impugned order and direct the court below to allow the petitioner to adduce his oral evidence by producing two witnesses within a period of one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order only after he furnishes proof of the payment of cost of Rs. 4,000/- to the plaintiff opposite party. It is made clear that even after payment of cost of Rs. 4,000/- if the petitioner does not produce his two witnesses within the time frame of one month, as indicated above, no further opportunity for this purpose will be again given to him by the court below. With the aforementioned observation/direction this application is allowed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/