IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16215 of 2010 1. Raj Kumar Yadav 2. Bijay Kumar Yadav Both are sons of Late Ram Prasad Yadav, R/os of Mohalla- Mussalahpur, Parmeshwari Dayal Lane, P.S.-Pirbahore, District- Patna. …… Petitioners-Plaintiffs. Versus 1. Smt.Sita Devi, W/o Ram Bihari Singh, R/o DEsh Raipur, P.S.- Mahnar, District-Vaishali. A/p Sheopur Tikia Toli, P.S.-Sultanganj, District- Patna. 2. Estate of Late Kishori Devi, W/o Late Babu Sahdeo Singh @ Rangi Singh, At-Sheopur Tikia Toli, P.S.-Sultanganj, District- Patna. ….. Respondents-Defendants. For the Petitioners : Mr. Tilak Sao, Advocate. ----------- 3. 10.11.2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners challenging order dated 24.11.2009 by which Additional District Judge-10, Patna allowed defendants’ application with cost for cross-examination of three witnesses in Title Suit No. 7 of 1989. 3. The aforesaid title suit arises out of Probate Case No. 35 of 1986, which was filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners for probate of letter of administration with respect to properties described in Schedule-II bequeathed by one Kishori Devi in favour of Ram Prasad Yadav, father of the plaintiffs. It was stated that said Kishori Devi died on 26.10.1968 whereafter father of the plaintiffs-petitioners died on 24.10.1974 and the probate case was filed on 7.03.1986, which was admitted on 29.08.1986. Thereafter objection was filed by the other side on 18.06.1987 whereafter the said probate case - 2 - was converted into title suit. 4. Learned court below has found that the aforesaid probate case was converted into title suit in the year 1987, which remained pending since then and now a petition has been filed by the defendants for cross-examination of three witnesses namely Mahtab Mahto, Raj Kumar Yadav and Vijay Kumar Yadav, who had been examined on behalf of the plaintiffs-petitioners. Considering the harassment caused to the plaintiffs a cost of Rs. 600/- was also levied by the court below, out of which Rs. 200/- was to be paid to each of the said witnesses. 5. This court does not find any illegality in the said order of the court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 6. However, the suit is pending since more than two decades and all the witnesses have already been examined, out of which only three plaintiffs’ witnesses are to be cross- examined by the defendants whereafter arguments have to be led by the parties. Hence the court below is directed to expedite the disposal of the suit so that it is positively done within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order without giving any undue adjournment to any of the parties. Sujit (S.N. Hussain, J.)