IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.598 of 2006 SANJAY KUMAR SANJEEV & ANR Versus SMT.MATARMAL DEVI & ORS ----------- 3 29.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the Court below having given indulgence to the petitioner for adducing evidence, has not committed any material irregularity much less jurisdictional error in awarding cost. Thus, the submission on behalf of the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a constable and was not in a position to get leave in course of his official duty is neither here nor there. The petitioner is also contesting a civil suit and therefore it was his duty to prosecute his case and he having not done so, if the Court below has awarded a cost of Rs. 2,000/- that would not be a ground for its interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At this stage, Counsel for the petitioner apprehends that even after deposit of a cost of Rs. 2,000/-, he will not be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses who have been so examined behind the back of the petitioner. It goes without saying that the Court below has itself passed an order and once the petitioner deposited the cost of Rs. 2,000/-, he will be definitely entitled for leading his oral and documentary evidence as also cross-examine any witness who have been examined in his back. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this civil revision application is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)