IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.93 of 2007 RAM BABU RAI Versus BHARAT RAI & ORS ----------- 02/ 14.05.2008 This Civil Revision has been filed by the petitioner, who was applicant in the court below, challenging order dated 20.11.2006, by which learned Subordinate Judge-I, Vaishali rejected his petition for producing another witness in his place to depose in Misc. Case No. 22 of 2000. This matter arises out of Partition Suit No. 151 of 1959 which was filed by the petitioner along with his brothers (opposite parties no.6 and 7 ) and their father against the predecessors of other opposite parties. In the aforesaid suit, defendants did not appear and a preliminary decree was passed on 24.03.1960, but thereafter the petitioner did not take any step for preparation of final decree. Much thereafter in the year 2000, the petitioner filed Misc. Case No.22 of 2000 stating that he heard rumour on 14.11.2000 that opposite party no.5 was going to take delivery of possession of his land through process of the court as Execution Case No.06 of 1990 was pending against the petitioner along with other opposite parties. Hence, the aforesaid miscellaneous case was filed under the provision of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It transpires that final decree of partition was prepared in the said suit, whereafter the decree holders filed Execution Case No. 06 of 1990 for execution of the decree and ten years thereafter the judgment debtors filed the said miscellaneous case in the year 2000 - 2 - and after further six years a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner on 19.08.2006 in the said miscellaneous case for allowing another person to adduce evidence on his behalf claiming that he was suffering from filaria in his leg and was also suffering from Kalazar. The learned court below has found that there was no material to show that the petitioner was suffering from kalazar or his filaria was so serious that he was not able to come to court. Furthermore, the learned court below has also found that the petitioner could be examined on commission also but the petitioner was not even ready for that. Hence, the learned court below rejected the said petition of the petitioner. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and, accordingly, this Civil Revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )