IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.335 of 2009 SHUSHILA DEVI WIFE OF PRAMOD YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – BASUA, P.O. – PIPARPANTI, P.S. – GOGARI (HAL PASRAHA), PARGANA – FARKIA, DISTRICT – KHAGARIA. --------DEFENDANTS 1ST PARTY-PETITIONER Versus 1. SANJU DEVI, WIFE OF SRI BIJANDRA YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – DEORIPIPARA, P.O. – MARAIYA, P.S. – PARBATTA, DISTRICT – KHAGARIA. 1(a) SAKUNTALA DEVI WIFE OF SRI GOPAL YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE + P.O. + P.S. PARBATTA, DISTRICT – KHAGARIA. 1(b) SHALO DEVI DAUGHTER OF GANPAT YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – BASUA, PARGANA – FARKIA, DISTRICT – KHAGARIA. 2. SMT. TARA DEVI WIFE OF GANPAT YADAV. 3. PRAKASH YADAV 4. BHOLA YADAV, BOTH SONS OF GANPAT YADAV 5. ARUN KUMAR YADAV 6. PANDAV YADAV BOTH MINOR SONS OF GANPAT YADAV WHO ARE UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR FATHER WHO IS ALSO HIS NEXT FRIEND AND KARTA AND MANAGER OF HIS JOINT FAMILY. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE – BASUA, P.O. – PIPARPANTI, P.S. – GOGARI (HAL PASRAHA) PARGANA – FARKIA, DISTRICT – KHAGARIA -------PLAINTIFFS/OPPOSITE PARTIES. 7. AZAD HAZARI SON OF LATE KARE HAZARI 8. MOST. DAIBATI DEVI WIFE OF LATE SUCHIT HAZARI @ BOTAL HAZARI BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE + P.O.-DUMARIA BUJURG, P.S. – PARBATTA, PARGANA – FARKIA, DISTRICT – KHAGARIA. -----DEFENDANTS 2ND PARTIES/OPPOSITE PARTIES. 9. HRIDAY NARAYAN YADAV. 10. OM PRAKASH YADAV. 11. JAI PRAKASH YADAV. 12. CHITENDRA YADAV ALL SONS OF BHOLA PRASAD YADAV ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE – BASUA, P.O. – PIPARPANTI, P.S. – GOGARI (HAL PASRAHA) PARGANA – FARKIA, DISTRICT – KHAGARIA. -------DEFENDANTS 3RD PARTIES/OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh No.2 Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ---------- 2. 3/3/2009 Heard Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh No. 2, learned counsel for the petitioner. - 2 - The defendant 1st party-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2008 passed by the Subordinate Judge 2nd, Khagaria, in Title Suit No. 61 of 1998 whereby his prayer for allowing her to adduce further evidence has been refused by the court below. Learned counsel for the defendant 1st party-petitioner submits that the defendant-petitioner has been substituted in place of her husband in the suit in the year 2005 and thus, she is entitled for grant of such opportunity. In the impugned order, it has been noted that five witnesses have been examined on behalf of the defendant- petitioner and some documentary evidence have also been brought on record. Last witness was examined on behalf of this defendant on 16.8.2005 itself. Though, this petitioner was substituted, according to the learned counsel for the defendant 1st party-petitioner, in the year 2005 itself in place of her deceased husband, no witness was proposed to be examined by her even after a lapse of three years thereafter. During the course of hearing also, nobody has appeared on behalf of the defendant 1st party-petitioner. Subsequently, when the suit was posted for pronouncement of judgment, then this defendants 1st party-petitioner appeared through a different Advocate and submitted that she should be allowed to make her submissions. That prayer was allowed. Thereafter, at the time of hearing, a petition was again filed for granting permission to adduce - 3 - further evidence. The trial court in the order impugned has observed that it is a suit of the year 1998 and the learned counsel appearing for the defendants 1st party-petitioner had earlier submitted before the court that no further evidence is required to be adduced in this case. Thereafter, the matter was posted for hearing on final submissions on behalf of the parties. The trial court, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, refused the prayer in the interest of justice. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 20.12.2008. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. S.Ali (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)