IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.12362 of 2011 Lali Devi Versus Kusum Devi ---------------------------------- 02. 03.08.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant-petitioner against the order dated 28.03.2011 passed by Subordinate Judge, Aurangabad in Title Suit No.146 of 2006 whereby the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the defendant-petitioner to call for the plaintiff No.2 for her evidence as witness in the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence of plaintiff No.2,namely, Nirmala Devi, is essential in this case and, therefore, the application was filed by the defendant for her evidence but the learned Court below wrongly rejected the said application. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below found that it is for the plaintiff to prove his case and, therefore, the defendant cannot dictate the plaintiff to - 2 - examine a particular witness. Moreover, the plaintiff No.2 has not been made party in this application by the petitioner. In my opinion, therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this application and accordingly it is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)