IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.604 of 2007 ANTI LAL SAH Versus ANIL KUMAR SINGH ----------- 7. 19.5.2009 Heard Sri Vivekanand Vivek, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Informant. Perused the impugned order and the earlier order passed in C.R.No.1745 of 2005. The reminder order passed by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction was only to consider the issue of partial eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises. The question of premises being required bonafide for personal necessity was concluded by the order of this Court as may appear from its earlier finding at page-4 of the above noted order passed in the above noted civil revision petition. The court below appears taking evidence and discussing it properly. There is admission of witnesses of the petitioner indicating that the suit premises was too small to be partially evicted. The situation of the suit premises has been detailed by the court below by referring to evidence of witnesses though it has been contended by the petitioner that evidence of - 2 - three witnesses have not been considered by the court below in its order so as to recording a finding that it was not a case in which a decree for partial eviction could be passed. I find no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )