IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.321 of 2009 SURAJ RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 5. 26/03/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed this revision application against order dated 23.1.2009 passed by Munsif-I, Buxar in T.S.No.198 of 1989, by which petition of the plaintiff dated 5.9.2005 for recall of the defendant’s witnesses examined in 2001 has been rejected. From the impugned order itself, it is apparent that all the witnesses whom the plaintiff wants to recall were examined in 2001. The plaintiff filed application for their recall in September, 2005. The order sheet also shows that the said application had been moved by the plaintiff’s counsel only in 2008. Apparently, there is delay and laches on the part of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had not been diligent in prosecuting the case and taking prompt steps. Learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner has vaguely submitted that since the plaintiff had moved this Court earlier for a - 2 - direction for his examination in the suit, the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendant could not be cross-examined. Learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner has not produced any order of this Court or has not shown that there was any stay in the matter due to which he was unable to file such petition for recall of the witnesses earlier. In the circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the learned court below and hence I do not find any merit in this revision application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)