IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.747 of 2007 RUPI SADAN PRASAD SINGH Versus SUMITRA NANDAN PRASAD SINGH ----------- 2 08.04.2009 Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. This revision application has been filed by the defendant against the order dated 25.01.2007 passed by Sub-Judge VII, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Title Suit No. 93 of 1987 and Title Suit No. 114 of 1988 by which adverse inference has been drawn against the petitioner because of refusal to reply to certain questions put to him by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that since both the suits were being proceeded with by the learned court below together, the petitioner had earlier filed an application under order XVIII, Rule III for reserving his right to answer to the evidence produced by the other party in respect of certain issues. He submits that the said petition was allowed by the learned court below by order dated 28.07.2006. A copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 3. Therefore, in the - 2 - light of the right granted to him by the said order the petitioner had rightly refuse to answer the particular question of learned counsel for the opposite party in cross- examination hence no adverse inference could be drawn against him which has been done by the learned court below by the impugned order without allowing the petitioner to explain the said denial by him and without allowing the petitioner to draw the attention of the court towards earlier order dated 28.07.2006. From the order impugned it does appear that on the objection of learned counsel appearing for the opposite party, the court below has drawn adverse interference against the petitioner. From the order it does not appear that while drawing the said adverse inference the court below was conscious of the right granted to the petitioner by order dated 28.07.2006. However, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the order dated 28.07.2006 was conditional and the said condition was not complied with by the petitioner and hence the said right given to the petitioner automatically stands withdrawn - 3 - and therefore the drawing adverse interference against the petitioner on his refusal to answer the question of learned counsel for the opposite party in cross examination was perfectly justified. It appears that the rival stand of the parties as advanced in this revision was not made before and considered by the court below at the time of drawing of adverse interference against the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court gives liberty to the petitioner to file a petition before the learned court below for withdrawing the said adverse interference drawn against him. The court below shall consider the said petition and pass an order afresh in the matter in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the suits are for partition and are of 1987 and 1988 therefore, direction be issued to the learned trial court below to proceed with the suit expeditiously and dispose of the same on an early date. Accordingly, this Court directs the trial court to proceed with the suit as expeditiously as possible and make - 4 - all endeavour to dispose of the same within a period of six months. With the above observations and directions, revision application is disposed of. Kundan (J. N. Singh, J.)