IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.10 of 2008 RADHEY SHYAM SINGH & ORS Versus BABBAN SINGH & ORS ----------- 4. 28.8.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court the impugned order dated 20.09.2007 passed by the court below closing the evidence of the defendants petitioners does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, Infact it is evident from the entire order sheet produced by the counsel for the petitioners himself that the plaintiffs had closed their evidence way back on 15.6.2006 and ever since thereafter it is the defendant- petitioners who had delayed the proceedings and had produced eight witnesses in a span of period of almost two years during which the court had to adjourn the proceedings on as many as 40 occasions. Such conduct of the petitioners will itself go to show that they were causing obstruction in disposal of the suit of the year 2000 (T.S.No. 5/2000) and as such the Court below had been left no option but to close their evidence. As a matter of fact such deliberate delaying laches of the defendant-petitioners has been 2 also discussed at length in the order passed by the Court below on 27.11.2007 while rejecting the application of the petitioners to recall the impugned order. Counsel for the petitioners however would submit that only one witness i.e. petitioner no. 1, being the defendant has to be examined and a few documents have to be exhibited in absence whereof the petitioners would be prejudiced in their defence in the suit. Counsel has also submitted that the petitioners are ready to compensate plaintiffs for the loss and harassment caused to them and would pay any reasonable amount for recall of the order closing their evidence. Considering the aforementioned submission this court in the interest of justice would direct the petitioners to complete their aforesaid evidence within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order, subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 5000/- (Five Thousands) to be paid by the petitioners to the plaintiffs within a period of one month from the date of 3 receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Payment of such cost is being imposed taking into account the harassment caused to the plaintiff opposite party for more than last two years during which they had not only attended the Court but infact had also completed their arguments after closure of evidence on 20.09.2007 as also keeping in mind that infact the plaintiff will have to bear additional expenditure in course of hearing and arguments as a consequence of the petitioner being allowed to adduce their evidence in terms of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/