IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1495 of 2008 TUNNA SINGH & ORS Versus MULKRAJ DEVI & ANR ----------- 2 11/9/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court the impugned order refusing to recall the earlier order closing evidence of the defendants-petitioners, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. In a suit of eviction filed in the year 2002 after the plaintiffs had already completed their evidence on 26.7.2007, the turn of the defendants-petitioners came to lead their evidence. The petitioners thereafter in fact had also adduced eleven witnesses in between 9.8.2007 to 1.2.2008 and thereafter came out with the plea that the document, namely, the sale deed, has to be called for from the Bank. Initially the court had allowed such prayer but when after waiting for almost three months such document could not be received, evidence of the defendants-petitioners was closed on 7.5.2008. The defendants-petitioners thereafter has filed again another petition to recall that order dated 2 7.5.2008 which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 20.8.2008, and the court below has given cogent reasons for rejecting such prayer. In the opinion of this Court, such order of the court below does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners would seek indulgence of this Court in the name of interest of justice, because it is his case that if that document is not allowed to be adduced in evidence which is his main defence, as the suit premises was actually purchased by him and he was the owner, would not be established. Counsel for the petitioners has himself offered cost of Rs. 2,000/- for allowing him to produce that sale deed by himself from the Bank within a period of one month. Considering interest of justice as also the case of the petitioners, this Court would allow such prayer of the petitioners for producing the sale deed in question from the Bank by himself within a period of one month from the date of 3 receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Such sale deed, however, would be taken into evidence only when the petitioner pays cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the plaintiff-landlord within a period of fifteen days of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. In the event such cost is paid by the petitioner and the document is produced by him within a period of one month, as indicated above, the court below will take that document into evidence, but would not allow any further evidence to be led by the petitioner. This application is accordingly disposed of with the aforementioned observations. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar