IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1397 of 2007 SHYAM LAL MAHTO Versus BISHWA NATH THAKUR & ORS ----------- 03. 12.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition is being finally heard at this stage at the instance of petitioner. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of defendant no.11-petitioner challenging order dated 11.06.2007 by which the learned Munsif-II, Madhubani, rejected his petition for cross-examination of PW.-3(Tunai Yadav) in Title Suit No. 66 of 1992. The aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiff-opposite party first set for declaration of his title, confirmation of possession and in the alternative recovery of possession and for other ancillary reliefs. It transpires that initially some of the defendants had appeared in the suit but subsequently suit was dismissed and later it was restored but after restoration of the suit the defendants did not appear in spite of service of notice and hence, the case was fixed for ex-parte hearing and plaintiff examined several witnesses. It further transpires that a petition was filed by the defendant for recall of the plaintiff’s witnesses for their cross-examination. The said petition was allowed by the learned court below by order dated 10.01.2007 subject to payment of cost of Rs.1000/- till 11.01.2007 and also payment of cost of Rs.200/- for each of the plaintiff’s witnesses which the defendant wanted to cross-examine within the same - 2 - period. It appears that the defendant submitted the cost of Rs.1000/- along with cost for cross-examination of three witnesses amounting to Rs. 600/-within 11.01.2007. It further transpires that on the said basis three plaintiff’s witnesses were permitted to be cross-examined by the defendant according to his choice. It further transpires that thereafter the defendant wanted to crosss-examine a fourth witness of the plaintiff, namely, PW.-3 but since the defendant had not availed of the opportunity of depositing the cost of the said witness within the prescribed time and only after third witness, namely, PW.-6 had been cross-examined on 15.05.2007,the said petition was filed by the defendant which has been rejected by the learned court below, by the impugned order. In my view, the learned court below has rightly rejected the said petition as it transpires that the suit is already sixteen years old and no such dilatory tactics can be allowed. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed with a direction to the learned court below to expedite the disposal of the suit. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)