IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.658 of 2006 RAMDEO MISTRI Versus PHULWANTI DEVI & ORS ----------- 3 15.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff petitioner seems to be aggrieved by an order dated 30.3.2006 whereby and whereunder his application dated 5.1.2006 seeking to recall an earlier order dated 22.12.2005 closing the evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner was rejected. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on account of such reasons beyond control of the petitioner, he was not in a position to adduce his evidence and consequently he had approached the Court below to give him at least one more opportunity to lead his evidence. Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the impugned order has also submitted that earlier when the evidences could not be produced by him on 16.2.2005, they were properly explained in the time petition dated 2.3.2005, 9.3.2005, 13.4.2005 and 20.4.2005 and such time petitions were also allowed by the Court below and therefore even if the Court below was satisfied that there were some lapses or laches on the part of the petitioner in leading his evidence, it ought to have given at least one final opportunity to him to lead his evidence but that having been not done, the impugned order cannot be 2 sustained. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner does not have much of a case on merit because earlier also, an order dated 16.6.2004 was passed by the court below giving last opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence and on his failure to do so his evidence was ultimately closed. On the prayer of the petitioner, such order was however recalled and he was given an opportunity to lead his evidence on 16.2.2005 but the petitioner again did not choose to lead any evidence from 16th February, 2005 and consequently, the Court below after waiting for a period of more than ten months had gone to close his evidence on 22.12.2005. In that view of the matter, the Court below was not unjustified in refusing to recall the order dated 22.12.2005 by passing the impugned order. One thing however would still be in favour of the petitioner in as much as the court below while passing the impugned order has not taken into consideration that it had earlier allowed the time petitions filed by the petitioner on 2.3.2005, 9.3.2005, 13.4.2005 and 20.4.2005 extending the period for examination of witnesses of the petitioner and therefore the Court below was at least required to pass a clear order giving one final opportunity to the petitioner to lead and complete his evidence. It however does not appear from the impugned order that such an opportunity was given 3 to the petitioner after 20.4.2005 and as such when order was passed on 22.12.2005 for closing the evidence of the plaintiff petitioner, the entire blame cannot be shifted on him because there is nothing to show that the court below had passed any order after 20.04.2005 and before 22.12.2005 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was given any last opportunity to lead his evidence before passing the order dated 22.12.2005 closing the evidence of the petitioner on the ground of non compliance of the order dated 16.02.2005. The Court below thus having created hopes in the petitioner by not passing any clear order after 20.04.2005 to this effect by way of giving a last chance to the petitioner did not adopt a correct course of action by closing the evidence of the petitioner by an order dated 22.12.2005. Be that as it may, the petitioner by his deliberate acts and omission has sufficiently and definitely harassed the defendants/opposite parties such laches on his part in leading evidence since 2004 to this day in a period over four years resulted into monetary loss which they had to spend in meeting the expenses for attending the Court as also by making regular Pairvi in the case in this period. There is no doubt that it is the defendants who have suffered on account of delay caused by the plaintiff/petitioner is completing his evidence. Therefore, the petitioner can not get equitable relief from this court for leading his evidence till he is prepared to 4 compensate the loss caused to the defendants at least in monetary terms. In this background Counsel for the petitioner has fairly agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- which would be paid by the petitioner to the contesting defendant opposite party nos. 1, 2 & 3 within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and the Court below on being furnished proof of such payment would allow the petitioner to adduce his evidence and complete the same within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not adduce his evidence and also completes it within a period of aforesaid period of six months from the date of receipt and/or production of this order, the Court below would be entitled to close his evidence and thereafter would proceed to record the evidence of the defendants. Taking further into consideration that the suit is of the year 1995, this Court would direct the Court below to ensure that the suit itself is disposed of within a period of one and a half years from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions this Civil Revision application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)