IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2144 of 2007 RAM NARAIN MAHTO Versus MANOJ KUMAR SAHU @ MANOJ KR.SAH ----------- 2. 27.8.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of O.P.No.1. While this Court would not find any fault in the impugned order wherein the court below virtually out of pain and frustration has gone to close the evidence of the plaintiff petitioner where it has found that repeated indulgence given for leading evidence by the plaintiff petitioner has not been availed. Counsel for the petitioner, however, very fairly says that he does not have any justifiable reason to assail the impugned order, but then the interest of justice would require that the plaintiff should be allowed to prove his case and that he cannot do unless he is allowed to lead evidence. Unfortunately, counsel for O.P.No.1 even after appearing in this case has not assisted this Court as he has chosen to remain absent. In such view of the matter, this 2 Court taking into the interest of justice to be paramount would allow the petitioner, the plaintiff, to lead his evidence and complete the same within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. This Court, however, taking into account that it is the plaintiff who has delayed disposal of the suit, would give such opportunity of leading his evidence, subject to payment of cost at the rate of Rs. 150/- per day from the day issues were framed till the date he starts leading his evidence. This cost on being calculated by the petitioner will be paid by him to the contesting defendants before he starts adducing evidence and satisfies the court with regard to the aforementioned payment. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/