IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9486 of 2011 BASANT KUMAR RAI @ CHUNCHUN RAI Versus VIJAY KUMAR RAI & ORS ----------- 02. 21.06.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application has been filed against the order dated 28.02.2011 and 05.03.2011 passed by learned Sub Judge IV, Begusarai in Title Suit No.55 of 2001 whereby the learned Court below directed the petitioner to be present for being examined first as witness. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact an application was filed by the petitioner for examining the other witnesses prior to examination of the petitioner as witness in the case but the learned Court below by terms of order dated 05.03.2011 directed that the petitioner should be examined first otherwise evidences should be closed. From perusal of the impugned order dated 28.02.2011, it appears that the petitioner filed application for time for examining witnesses but the said application was not pressed and, therefore, the learned Court below directed the petitioner to adduce himself as witness on the next date. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact the application was pressed but the learned Court below has wrongly recorded the order that it was not pressed. So far this submission is concerned, it is not acceptable at this stage in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It appears that the learned Court below has acted within his jurisdiction as provided under Order 18 Rule 3A C.P.C., therefore, I find no reason to interfere in the exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)