IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6432 of 2011 SRI SUNIL KUMAR, Son of Sri Vidyanand Sinha, Resident of Mohamadali Chak, Police Station – Naubatpur, District – Patna. ……….. Defendant / Petitioner. Versus SRI AJAY KUMAR, Son of Late Sarbanand Singh, R/O –New Paharpur, Khagaul Road, Police Station – Gardanibagh, District – Patna. ………. Plaintiff / Respondent. ----------- 02/ 13.04.2011 Heard. This writ application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 09.02.2011 passed by the Munsif-II, Patna in Eviction Suit No. 10 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the learned court below rejected the petition dated 07.01.2011 filed by the petitioner to recall the Bank statement from the Bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit is for eviction and the petitioner has claimed that he has deposited the monthly rent in the account of the respondent bearing Account No. 384/4 J.K. Bank, Phulwarisharif Branch and he has prayed to call for the statement of deposit in the Bank Account. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that he has filed the receipts by which he has deposited the amount in the account of the respondent. However, the contention of the prayer of the petitioner has been contested that 2 it does not require and it has been asserted that this petition has been filed only to obstruct the disposal of the suit as the suit is for eviction on the ground of personal necessity and the suit is pending since 2006 and the evidence of both the parties have already been closed and the case has been running for argument of the defendant after the argument of the plaintiff has been concluded. Now the petition has been filed for recalling the Bank statement only to delay the disposal of the suit. Hence, having regard to the fact that the assertion of the petitioner is that he has already been deposited the amount in the account of the respondent and has filed the counterfoil of the receipt of payment in the account and hence there is no need for recalling the statement of the Bank Account. Since the evidence of both the parties has already been closed and the case is for argument and the argument of the plaintiff has already been closed and the case is pending for argument of the defendant. Hence, it is apparent that the petition has been filed just to delay the disposal of the case to harass the plaintiff. Hence, I do not find any merit in this petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)