IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11108 of 2011 Khalid Shaheen S/O Md. Ishteyaque R/O Chaudhary Mohalla- Katihar, P.S.- Katihar, Distt.- Katihar. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus Mukhtar Ahmad S/O Late Md. Abid Hussain R/O Vill.- Salmari, P.S.- Azamnagar, Distt.- Katihar. . . . . . . Respondent. ----------- 2/ 16.09.2011 The defendant is the petitioner in this case and is aggrieved by order dated 29.04.2011 passed in Eviction Suit no. 03 of 2004, whereby his petition seeking details from Passport office, Government of India, whether the son of the plaintiff has gone abroad or not, has been rejected. The petitioner submits that the trial court ought not to have closed his evidence while rejecting his petition to call for a report from the Pass-port Office, Government of India. Earlier the suit was decreed ex parte on 10.11.2004. The defendant filed Misc. case for setting aside ex-parte decree which was allowed on 02.04.2005 and the suit revived. The plaintiff closed its evidence on 05.12.2007 and since 2007, till date the defendant examined only 13 out of 21 witnesses. Thereafter the defendant filed petition to seek details from Pass-port office regarding foreign employment of plaintiff’s son. The trial court rightly observed that the defendant himself ought to have taken pains to collect the report from the passport office, Government of India and filed it in the court. Thus, no fault can be found with the order rejecting the application of the defendant. The petitioner-defendant raised next point that 2 while rejecting his application, the trial court ought not to have closed his evidence. I see substance in this submission and taking into consideration and the nature of order, I propose to pass, I need not issue notice to the plaintiff. The defendant by way of last chance is permitted to adduce all his evidence within six weeks from today, failing which his evidence would stand closed. The indulgence granted to the defendant is subject to deposit of Rs.2,000/-, as cost already ordered by the trial court, within a period of two weeks from today. The trial court, as such would close evidence of the defendant after lapse of six weeks. The trial court would be at liberty to fix a date for hearing of final argument in the case. Let a copy of this order be communicated to Additional Munsif-VI, Katihar or the successor court in seisin of Eviction Suit no. 03 of 2004. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)