IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1038 of 2008 PANCH DEVI & ORS Versus SMT.BADAM DEVI & ANR ----------- 2 24.07.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. Here are persons the plaintiff- petitioners who have been given repeated indulgence from December, 2005 to lead their evidence but on some pretext or other they have kept on wasting time of the Court below. Initially after the plaintiffs/landlord closed the evidence in the eviction suit the petitioners-defendant-tenant did not choose to lead evidence and the case was fixed for ex- parte hearing. At that stage they came with a mercy petition and the Court below allowed them to examine their eleven witnesses. Thereafter, as they did not produce any more witness, their evidence was closed. They again came with their second mercy petition stating therein that they wanted to examine only two more witnesses namely, Pleader Commissioner and the Manager of the Trust. That application of the petitioners was also allowed and they again given another opportunity to produce their remaining two - 2 - witnesses. This time the petitioners had produced only one witness namely the Pleader Commissioner, but conveniently did not produce their other witness. The Court below after giving sufficient indulgence had again closed their evidence. When the case was fixed for argument, the petitioners came with another application, now this time claiming that there is a document being a registered deed of trust which should be allowed to be exhibited. The Court below has rejected the same by the impugned order, holding that it is a philabusterous attitude on the part of the petitioner who was only trying to delay the disposal of the suit. This Court therefore does not find any material irregularity and/or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and accordingly this Civil Revision application being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. BCJ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)