IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1103 of 2009 ----------- 1. Vinod Tiwari 2. Pramod Tiwari 3. Amod Tiwari 4. Manoj Tiwari @ Manoj Kumar Tiwari All sons of late Rajwant Tiwari, residents of village Tiwari Tola, P.O. Bagaha. P.S. Bagaha, District West Champaran. ….Plaintiffs-Petitioners. Versus 1. Smt. Manju Devi, wife Ravindra Tiwari 2. Ravindra Tiwari, son of late Raghunath Tiwari, Both residents of of village Tiwari Tola, P.O. Bagaha. P.S. Bagaha, District West Champaran. ...Defendant Ist Party-Opp. 1st Party. 3. Ravindra Singh, son of Harendra Singh, resident of village Devadi, P.O. Taraya, District Chhapra. …Defendant 2st Party-Opposite 2nd party. -------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Kumar Shashank Shekhar, Advocate. For the Opp. Parties : None. ------- 03/ 07.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This civil revision is being heard at this stage at the instance of learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners challenging order dated 02.06.2009, by which learned Munsif, Bagaha, West Champaran, imposed cost of Rs.5,000.00 on them while allowing their application for allowing them to produce further documentary evidence in Title Suit No. 54 of 2000. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners for permanent injunction and other ancillary reliefs with respect to the suit properties as detailed in the schedule of their plaint. The said suit was contested by the defendants, who appeared and filed their pleadings. Thereafter, the issues were framed in the suit on 04.02.2004, whereafter 2 evidence was to be started. 4. It transpires that inspite of several chances the plaintiffs did not lead their evidence, due to which their evidence was closed by the learned court below vide order dated 03.06.2006 and their application for recall of the aforesaid order was also dismissed by the learned court below on 17.04.2008. Against the said order, the plaintiffs-petitioners filed Civil Revision No. 1126 of 2008, which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.09.2008 directing the plaintiffs to deposit a sum of Rs.8,000.00 in court for its being paid to the defendants within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of that order and on making such deposit by the plaintiffs, the court below will fix the date for examination of witnesses of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs must complete their evidence both oral and documentary within a period of two months and, thereafter, the defendants also must complete their evidence in an expeditious manner so that the said title suit is disposed of within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the said order. 5. It transpires that all the witnesses of the plaintiffs were examined by 23.05.2009 and only thereafter an application was filed by the plaintiffs on 26.05.2009 for allowing them to produce some more documentary evidence. This would naturally require fresh evidence of the plaintiffs, whereafter the defendants had to produce their evidence and the matter was bound to be delayed. Hence the learned court below allowed the application of the plaintiffs-petitioners with a cost of Rs.5000.00 vide impugned order dated 02.06.2009. Against the said order, the instant civil revision has been filed. 3 6. Although learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently challenges the said order of the learned court below but it is quite apparent that the plaintiffs have been dilly-dallying the matter since long as the issues have been framed on 04.02.2004 and immediately thereafter the plaintiffs should have produced their list of documents and witnesses but it took five long years for the plaintiffs to do the same. It is further apparent from the records that even after the order of this Court dated 16.09.2008 the plaintiffs-petitioners did not take any appropriate step and filed their application for adducing further documentary evidence in May 2009 when the time granted by this Court for disposal of the suit was expiring within four months and in the meantime the evidence of the defendants had to be led and the arguments of both the parties were also to be heard. 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. However, if the suit is still pending for hearing and the arguments are not concluded, the plaintiffs-petitioners must deposit the said cost within 15 days from today and should produce their evidence and complete the same within two weeks thereafter, failing either of which, their evidence will be closed and the suit will proceed immediately thereafter for its expeditious disposal in accordance with the earlier order of this Court. MPS/ ( S.N. Hussain, J. )