IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1567 of 2006 MD.BADIUZZAMA & ANR Versus SHANTI DEVI & ORS ----------- 2 18.12.2008 Heard counsel for the defendant-petitioners. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated 28.7.2006 of the Court below refusing to recall its order dated 27.5.2005 closing the evidence of the petitioners, does not suffer from any jurisdiction error. It is so, because the prayer for such recall of the order closing evidence of the defendants-petitioners was based only for the purposes of proving a Hukumnama. The said Hukumnama, forming part and base of the written statement of the defendants-petitioners normally in terms of Order VIII C.P.C. was a document which had to be filed with the written statement. That however, was not done at that stage in the Title Suit No. 105 of 1995. As a matter of fact, even when the issues were framed the said document in original was not produced in terms of Order XIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It however appears that subsequently a photocopy copy of the said Hukumnama was produced the petitioner only on 20.2.2002 and after a period of another two years a prayer was made by him on 26.2.2004 to recall the original of such Hukumnama - 2 - from the records of a pending case, Title Suit No. 80 of 1991 from the Court of Additional Munsif-II , Gaya. The said prayer of the petitioner was rejected. Thereafter it is said that the petitioner had filed a requisition for certified copy of the aforementioned Hukumnama in that Title Suit 80 of 1991 which was supplied to him on 24.6.2005. In the meantime the evidence of the defendants-petitioners in the present suit was already closed on 27.5.2005. The petitioner infact did not allow the proceedings of the suit to make any head way initially by an application filed for recall of that order dated 27.5.2005 which was disposed of by the impugned order on 28.7.2006. The resultant present Civil Revision application has also remained pending for more than two and half years. The counsel for the petitioner had also not taken any steps for its early disposal. It is thus clear that the defendants-petitioners was/is only interesting in keeping the suit pending. The plea of Hukumnama for its being exhibited infact is one of such mode of causing delay. All that this court can record is that the petitioners having not complied the provisions with regard to filing of the documents in terms of Order VIII and XIII of the C.P.C. cannot have the luxury of - 3 - producing the document as and when they would please to do so. That being so, this Civil Revision application is wholly misconceived and is hereby dismissed. The Court below which ought to have not stayed the arguments of the case ever since the closure of evidence of the defendants-petitioners on 27.5.2005 merely on the ground of pendency of this civil revision application is directed to ensure that the suit itself is disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)