IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1433 of 2008 RASO DEVI Versus NAND KISHORE YADAV & ORS ----------- 2 2.9.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, adjourning the case on the ground of illness of a party in the midst of adducing evidence, cannot be said to be a jurisdictional error. In fact when a party did not appear and produce witness, the Court had also a right to close the evidence but a question would thus arise as to how was the Court apprised of this fact that the party who has been precluded from appearing had no reasonable cause. It is on record now that the defendant no.7 having appeared in the suit on 4.10.2007 by filing his written statement had contested the suit with all eagerness up to 3.2.2008 the date on which the evidence of the plaintiff came to be closed after cross-examination of his witnesses on record. The Court below in fact had thereafter allowed the defendants to lead their evidence and the defendant no.7 was in the process of examining his witness. However on account of his non-appearance and non- production of witness on a particular date, the Court below by an order dated 30.5.2008 had closed the evidence. That order dated 30.5.2008 has been recalled by the Court below by the impugned order on a satisfactory explanation given with regard to the illness in the family of defendant no.7. In the opinion of this Court, such an order passed by the Court below cannot be said to be either suffering from any material 2 irregularity or jurisdictional error. Consequently, this civil revision application, to say the least, is frivolous and fit to be dismissed. This court would however observe that the suit is of the year, 2003, and the plaintiff-petitioner have been already subjected to repeated harassment by other defendants who have kept on appearing in the suit intermittently, leading the plaintiff to recall his witness and getting them cross-examination, and as the suit is required to be disposed of expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This order however is being passed on an impression that all the other defendants have already adduced evidence and when the defendant no.7 is also in the process of completing his evidence, the same would be concluded within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order leaving next five months for arguments and judgment. That being the position, this civil revision application is hereby dismissed with the aforementioned observations and directions. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)