IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.228 of 2008 Ramsewak Jha, son of late Kali Prasad Jha, resident of village Kharahara @ Lakshmipur, P.S. Barahat, District Banka.……..Plaintiff-Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Sharda Devi wife of Basudeo Jha 2. Chandra Shekhar Jha son of Basudeo Jha 3. Nawin Jha son of Basudeo Jha 4. Niranjan Jha son of Basudeo Jha 5. Yogan Jha son of Basudeo Jha 6. Awadhesh Jha son of Basudeo Jha All resident of village Bhagwanpur, P.S. Banka, District Banka.……..Defendants 1st party-Opposite party 1st set. 7. Shyamakant Jha son of late Kallar Jha, resident of village Kharharhara @ Lakshmipur, P.S. Barahat, District Banka...Defendant 2nd party-Opposite party 2nd set. 8. Bikash Kumar Jha son of late Subhash Chandra Jha 9. Juli Kumari 10. Guria Kumari Both daughters of late Subhash Chandra Jha All residents of village Kharbhara @ Lakshmipur, P.S. Barahat, District Banka. …….Defendants 3rd party-Opposite party 3rd set. For the petitioner :Mr. Sarveshwar Tiwary, J.C. to Mr. Subodh Kr. Jha, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 03/ 14.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by plaintiff- petitioner challenging order dated 03.01.2008 by which learned Subordinate Judge-I, Banka rejected his application for adjournment of Title suit No.26 of 1991. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff- petitioner for declaration of his title and also for declaration that defendants 1st party had no right, title or interest in the suit 2 property and any entry in the consolidation survey with respect thereto in the name of defendants 1st party was illegal, redundant, erroneous, wrong and not binding upon the plaintiff and subsequently for removal of encroachment. In the said suit defendants appeared and contested, whereafter issues were framed and the trial of the suit started. 4. It further transpires that in spite of time granted, the plaintiff did not produce his evidence and hence on 15.12.2007 last opportunity as sought for was given to him for bringing his evidence. It further transpires that even thereafter the plaintiff did not produce any witness on 03.01.2008 nor filed any time petition and hence in view of Confidential Letter No.68 (C) dated 06.10.2007 of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur for expeditious disposal of the suit, the said application was rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 03.01.2008 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. It further transpires that earlier an application dated 15.09.2007 was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under the provision of Order XVIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was dismissed by the learned court below vide its order dated 17.09.2007. The said order was challenged by the plaintiff- petitioner in C.R. No.2060 of 2007 which is still pending in this court and in that civil revision no order till date has been passed for stay of further proceeding of the suit. It may be noted in this connection that in case no order of stay is passed by this court, the 3 learned court below has to wait for a fortnight and thereafter for a week for the concerned party to bring an order of stay failing which the learned court below has to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. 6. In the instant case no order of stay having been passed by this court and the learned District Judge, Bhagalpur having directed expeditious disposal of the suit which was already more than 17 years old and also due to the dilatory attitude and absence of the plaintiff, the learned court below was quite justified in closing the evidence of plaintiff by the impugned order. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below, nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )