IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.564 of 2009 1. SHEO MUNI SINGH 2. NARENDRA KUMAR SINGH BOTH SONS OF LATE RAM SURESH SINGH 3. SHEO KUMAR SINGH 4. KAMESHWAR SINGH BOTH SONS OF LATE RANG BAHADUR SINGH 5. MOST. MARACHNI KUER, W/O LATE RANG BAHADUR SINGH 6. MAHENDRA SINGH 7. ANIL KUMAR SINGH 8. TUNTUN SINGH SONS OF SHEO MURAT SINGH ALL ARE R/O VILAGE-BANDIPUR, P.S.-RAMGARH, DISTRICT-KAIMUR AT BHABHUA. ……………PLAINTIFFS/PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, KAIMUR AT BHABHUA. 2. GRAM BHARTI COLLEGE, RAMGARH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL. 3. BHOLA RAM, S/O LATE RAMAYAN RAM. BOTH (DEFENDANTS/OPP. PARTY NOS. 2 & 3) OF VILLAGE-BANDIPUR, P.S.-RAMGARH, DISTRICT- KAIMUR (BHABHUA). ----------- 3 13.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This civil revision application has been filed by the plaintiffs against order dated 16.1.2009 passed by Sub-Judge- III, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Title Suit No. 155 of 1992 by which the petition of the plaintiffs for recall of the order dated 5.7.2005 closing the deposition of PW-13 has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the order sheet of all the earlier dates, submits that PW-13 Sheo Muni Singh had been examined and 2 thereafter cross-examined on many dates. He submits that thereafter also he kept on appearing but the defendants’ counsel did not proceed with further cross-examination of the witness and did not complete the same. However, on one date i.e. 5.7.2005 this witness did not appear and therefore, his evidence has been closed. Thereafter one petition was filed for recall of the order presenting the said PW-13 as a witness for his further cross-examination which has been rejected by the impugned order. From the copy of the order sheet produced by learned counsel for the petitioners it is not clear as to whether from 21.5.2003 up to 5.7.2005 the witness was physically present for further cross- examination or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the witness being plaintiff himself, he was appearing in the suit on each and every date. This matter has to be ascertained from the records of the court i.e. from the appearance filed by or on behalf of the plaintiff concerned. Therefore, 3 the matter is remitted back to the court below where the plaintiff-petitioner shall file a petition for his further cross- examination pointing out that on each and every date subsequent to 22.5.2003 the plaintiff witness was himself present in court for his cross-examination. In case the learned court below finds that the witness was present in court and his evidence was closed only due to default on his part on one date, the court below shall consider allowing him to present himself for further cross-examination by the defendants’ counsel. In case the defendants’ counsel refuses to further cross-examine him, the court below shall close his evidence recording the same. With the above observations and directions, this revision application is disposed of. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)