IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1972 of 2008 RAM AYODHYA SAH Versus RAJ NARAIN SINGH ----------- 2 28/11/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. The court below has not committed any jurisdictional error in refusing to recall the order closing evidence of the defendant-petitioner. From 2.12.2006, the date on which the plaintiff had closed their evidence, the defendants were given adequate opportunity to lead their evidence and in a period of more than one and half years they could produce only seven witnesses. The plea of illness for brief spell that too without any cogent evidence of such illness was rightly rejected by the court below. Today before this Court counsel for the petitioner would submit that interest of justice would require that the defendant-petitioner may be given one indulgence as some very important witnesses have not been examined and if 2 they are not allowed to be examined their entire defence would be prejudiced. He would further offer a sum of Rs. 500/- for each of the witnesses the defendant would like to examine. Considering the fact that closure of evidence of the defendant-petitioner would substantially prejudice their case, this Court would direct the petitioner to pay the consolidated sum of Rs.3,000/- to the plaintiff-opposite party within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and submit proof of such payment before the court below in the next one week. In the event the aforesaid payment is made by the petitioner the court below will grant further one month time to the petitioner to complete his evidence, during which he would examine only relevant witnesses not exceeding four in number. It is, however, made clear that if the petitioner does not comply any part of the aforesaid order, the court below will proceed with the argument of the case and deliver its judgment. 3 With the aforementioned observation /direction this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar