IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16094 of 2010 1. SMT. CHINTA DEVI W/O SH. MADAN PRASAD SINGH R/O MOHALLA- GANGASAGAR, P.S.- LAHERIASARAI, DISTT.- DARBHANGA Versus 1. BINOD KUMAR MANDAL S/O LATE SURYA NARAYAN MANDAL R/O MOHALLA- BAKERGANJ, P.O. & P.S.- LAHERIASARAI, DISTT.- DARBHANGA 2. PRAMOD KUMAR MANDAL S/O LATE SURYA NARAYAN MANDAL R/O MOHALLA- BAKERGANJ, P.O. & P.S.- LAHERIASARAI, DISTT.- DARBHANGA 3. ANJU KUMARI D/O LATE SURYA NARAYAN MANDAL R/O MOHALLA- BAKERGANJ, P.O. & P.S.- LAHERIASARAI, DISTT.- DARBHANGA 4. REKHA KUMARI D/O LATE SURYA NARAYAN MANDAL R/O MOHALLA- BAKERGANJ, P.O. & P.S.- LAHERIASARAI, DISTT.- DARBHANGA 5. SMT. SUNITA DEVI W/O SRI RAJENDRA SAH R/O MOHALLA- BELWAGUNJ, PARGANA- PURAB BHIGO, WARD NO. 33, LAHERIASARAI, DISTT.- DARBHANGA 6. MD. SAKIL S/O LATE MD. SALIM R/O VILL.- CHARDI, P.O. & P.S.- BISHANPUR AND DISTT.- DARBHANGA 7. SMT. GITA DEVI W/O SRI VIJAY KUMAR SINGH R/O MUHALLA- RAHMGUNJ, P.O. & P.S.- LAHERIASARAI, DISTT.- DARBHANGA ----------- 02. 28.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the respondent no.5. The petitioner is stated to be the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 134 of 2003, instituted for decree of specific performance with regard to the Suit lands and for execution of the sale deed seeking permanent injunction restraining disturbance of her peaceful possession in the meantime. She is aggrieved by the orders dated 9.2.2010, closing her evidence, refusing to recall that order on 19.4.2010 and rejecting review of the latter on 2.7.2010. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no reason for her as the plaintiff to unnecessarily delay the Suit. On 9.2.2010 she had agreed only to the disposal of the application dated 14.8.2007. The application dated 23.6.2008 with regard to examination of plaintiff on commission was yet to be disposed and the order sheet reflects that on certain occasions the petitioner had sought to press the latter application which was not disposed off and therefore the recitals in the impugned order dated 19.4.2010 to the contrary with regard to the application dated 23.6.2008 was an error of record. Learned counsel for the respondent no.5 submits that the petitioner had been given more than one opportunity, she was herself delaying the Suit, on 9.2.2010 it was her request to close her evidence. The Court has considered the submissions. The petitioner is the plaintiff, had it been the defendant coming forward with such a case different consideration may have applied. The Court is satisfied in the facts and circumstances of the case to set aside the impugned order dated 9.2.2010, 19.4.2010 and 2.7.2010. The Court shall not be taken to have made any observation on the petitioner’s application dated 23.06.2008 which is to be examined by the trial court on its own merit in accordance 3 with law in its own discretion. The petitioner shall be granted an opportunity to lead evidence on a day to day basis without any frivolous or unnecessary adjournments. Any dereliction or alertness on part of the petitioner as plaintiff to pursue the Suit shall be at her own peril. The present order shall not be understood to deter the powers of the trial court in any manner, circumstances so warranting again on the conduct of the petitioner herself. The application stands disposed. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)