IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3332 of 2009 Kalawati Devi, W/o Sri Lallan Ojha, Resident of Village Manopali, P.S. Baniapur, District Saran (Chapra), At present, resident of Village Medhuka, P.S. Baniapur, District Saran (Chapra). -------- Petitioner Versus 1. Prabhawati Devi, W/o Sri Parashuram Tiwari, D/o Vindhyachal Rai, Resident of Village Harpur Kothi, P.S. Janta Bazar, Distt. Saran (Chapra). 2. Umarawati Devi, W/o Sri Raj Narain Pandey, Resident of Village Musepur, P.S. Basantpur, District Siwan. ---------- Opposite Party- 1st Set 3. Jagdish Rai. 4. Sheo Mangal Rai. Both sons of Late Bachcha Rai. Both 3 & 4 resident of Village Medhuka, P.S. Baniapur, Distt. Saran (Chapra). -------- Opposite Party 2nd Set ----------- 2 2.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Earlier vide order dated 21.5.2009 in C.R. No. 2001 of 2008 the defendant-petitioner was given an opportunity to reopen his closed evidence on payment of Rs. 2,500/- within a period of one month from the date of order i.e. 21.5.2009. Counsel, however, would submit that the order of this Court which was communicated soon after reopening of the court i.e. after the annual vacation on 27.6.2009, somehow could have reached the court below in the month of August, 2009 as a result whereof, the defendant-petitioner could not get the necessary relief for which such an order was 2 passed. This Court would find that no conscious effort was made by the defendant-petitioner to deposit the amount and mere statement that the offer for payment was made to the counsel of the other side in absence of any proof would not be acceptable. The fact that this application was filed on 29.10.2009 i.e. after expiry of a period of five months would again demonstrate proof of fact that the defendant-petitioner had consumed its full time as granted in the order of this Court dated 21.5.2009 for no reasonable cause. Consequently, this Court would have found hardly any occasion to modify the order dated 21.5.2009 which was passed in the interest of justice for giving an opportunity to the defendant-petitioner to place his case but then taking into account that the order in question on account of intervening annual vacation could not be communicated within a period of one month by this Court vide memo no. 2130 dated 29.6.2009 as recorded in the records of the C.R. No. 2001 of 2008, this 3 Court would give liberty to the petitioner to deposit the same within fifteen days of the receipt of this order. The defendant- petitioner, however, will be required to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the plaintiff if they want full benefit of the order of this Court dated 21.5.2009 in connected C.R. No. 2001 of 2008. With the aforesaid modification, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)