IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1301 of 2008 PREM DAS Versus PRABHAWATI DEVI @ INRA DEVI ----------- 2 23.09.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The Court below has noted the default on the part of the petitioner and therefore, had rightly chosen to close the evidence after noting the deliberate disobedience on the part of the petitioner even to pay the cost as directed in the earlier order dated 3.5.2008, 7.5.2008 and 15.5.2008 prior to passing of the impugned order on 20.5.2008. Such attitude of the petitioner in fact would automatically disentitle him from the discretionary relief of examining his witness when the default on the part of the petitioner was apparent on the face of the record. This Court, however, would find some merit in the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner that there are only two witnesses to be examined by the petitioner and in case they are not examined the case of the petitioner would be grossly prejudiced. Realizing that this is a matrimonial case brought by the petitioner and non-examination of the two witnesses may become fatal - 2 - for his case, this Court would allow such prayer provided the petitioner pays the amount of cost as directed by the Court below in the impugned order plus Rs. 2500/- as an additional cost and the entire cost as directed above will be paid to the wife-opposite party before the petitioner starts adducing two witnesses. The two witnesses also must be examined within a period of one month from the date the petitioner appears and Court fixes the date for this purpose. With the aforementioned observations and directions this Civil Revision application is disposed of. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)