IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10849 of 2011 JAG NARAIAN YADAV @ JAG NARAIN - Petitioner/s(s) Versus BHODA YADAV - Respondent/s(s) ____________ 2. 11.07.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The defendant petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing the order dated 19.8.2010 passed by 4th Subordinate Judge, Bhojpur, Ara in Title Suit No. 44 of 2004, whereby the learned court below refused to recall the earlier orders and not allowed the petitioner to be examined as witness in the case. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned court below has considered the conduct of the petitioner who has been able to drag the case from 28.2.2007 till date. It appears that repeatedly many applications were filed by this petitioner before the court below with a prayer for being examined as witness. Further the said applications were not pressed by the petitioner and the learned court below dismissed those applications as 2 not pressed. It appears that the petitioner was directed to be examined as witness on 23.3.2007 but he did not examine himself. On 12.4.2007 and 26.4.2007 also the petitioner did not examine himself. Therefore, the case of the defendant was closed on 10.5.2007. Subsequently, the defendant petitioner filed application on 18.5.2007 for recall of the said order but the said application was not pressed by the petitioner and it was dismissed. Again on 6.6.2007 a fresh application was filed for recall of the order whereby the petitioner’s case was closed. The defendant again did not press the said application and, therefore, it was dismissed and the case was posted for argument and then again the defendant filed petition on 5.9.2007 which was again not pressed, therefore, dismissed on 6.10.2007 and the case was fixed for argument. Then for the 4th time the application has been filed on 8.11.2007 which was dismissed by the court below. Considering this fact the learned court below found that the defendant has been 3 able to avoid the disposal of the case for last three years. Considering the conduct of the petitioner, in my opinion, supervisory jurisdiction should not be exercised in favour of a person whose conduct is such as has been detailed in the impugned order which indicate that he is interested only in delaying the disposal of the suit. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. The learned court below is directed to proceed with the hearing of the case and dispose of the same within a reasonable period without giving unnecessary adjournment. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)