IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1936 of 2008 SRI PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY Versus B.S.E.B & ORS ----------- 2 21/11/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Rarely there would be an occasion when all the three, namely, counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the other side and the Court would be prepared to dispose of the matter expeditiously. Any one of them or may be all of them have their own compulsion for not getting the matter disposed of an early date, but when a person like the petitioner approaches the Court taking a plea that the matter has been too much delayed, the Court instead of adopting a mechanical approach is expected to be more sensitive in ensuring early disposal of the case. In the present case the plaintiff- petitioner has filed Money suit in the year 1998 and even when the evidence of the parties had been completed in a protracted course of ten years and was eventually closed on 25.4.2008, it is still awaiting conclusion of arguments by both the parties. 2 Mr. Ambar Nath Banarjee, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that attempt of the defendants-opposite parties for reopening of their evidence was also rejected by the court below and affirmed upto this Court and yet the court has not made serious endeavour to conclude arguments for delivering its judgment. This Court would, therefore, direct the court below to ensure that the arguments in the case is concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and unless there be any such compelling reason, the suit must be also disposed of within a period of one month from the date of conclusion of arguments. With the aforementioned observation/ direction this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar