IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.348 of 2009 1. SRI BHIKHARI DAS 2. SRI RAGHULAL DAS BOTH SONS OF LATE VIRAING DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- HARPUR AILOTH, P.S. MUSARIGHARARI, DISTRICT – SAMASTIPUR. ------- PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS Versus 1. RAMSARAN PASWAN SON OF LATE RAMFAL PASWAN 2. RAN UDGAR PASWAN SON OF SRI RAMSARAN PASWAN BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE + P.O. HARPUR AILOTH, P.S. MUSARIGHARARI, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. -----DEFENDANT 1ST PARTY-OPPOSITE 1ST PARTY. 3. VIVEK PASWAN, SON OF LATE CHOTAN PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST-HARPUR AILOTH, P.S. MUSARIGHARARI, DISTRICT – SAMASTIPUR. ------DEFENDANT 2ND PARTY-OPPOSITE 2ND PARTY. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, No.1., Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 2. 2/3/2009 Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners. The plaintiffs-petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 14.1.2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court, Samastipur in Title Suit No. 09 of 2005 whereby his prayer for examination of the defendants No. 1 and 2 as witnesses has been refused by the court below. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit has been compromised between the plaintiffs and the defendants-1st party-opposite 1st party and such compromise petition was filed before the court below and in this regard, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were required to be examined as - 2 - witness. The trial court on consideration of rival submissions has observed that a compromise petition has been filed and on 24.11.2008 after closure of evidence on behalf of defendant No. 3, and when the case was fixed for hearing of final submissions on behalf of parties, a petition each on behalf of plaintiff as well as defendant Nos. 1 and 2 has been filed for permitting the aforesaid defendants to be examined as witness. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not produce themselves to be examined as witness on any earlier occasion. On due consideration, the court below has come to the conclusion that the recording of evidence of defendants No. 1 and 2 at that stage is not required for the ends of justice and thus has refused the prayer. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 14.1.2009. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. S.Ali (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)