IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.597 of 2007 ----- Madan Prasad Sharma, son of Late Deoki Nandan Singh, resident of Village-Darweshpura, P.S. and P.O. Giriak, (Katrisarai), District- Nalanda. -- Defendant-petitioner. Versus 1. Smt. Lalita Devi, wife of Sri Vijoy Kumar Banka, resident of at, P.S. and P.O. Warsaliganj, District-Nawadah. --Plaintiff-Opposite Party. 2. The Punjab National Bank Ltd. through its Regional Manager, Patna. 3. The Officer-in-Charge, Punjab National Bank, Katrisarai (Branch) P.S. Katriasarai (Giriak), District-Nalanda. --Defendant-Opposite Party. ----- For the petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Nath Tiwary with Mr. Upendra Mishra, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. ----- 02. 05.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 19.01.2007 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-II, Nawadah allowed his petition under Section 35(B) of the Code of Civil Procedure inflicting a cost of Rs.2,000.00 in Title Suit No.41 of 1982. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed about 27 years back by plaintiff-opposite party no.1 for declaration that he was entitled to recover possession of the jeep in question from Punjab National Bank besides damages, injunction etc. The defendants, including the Punjab National Bank, appeared and contested the suit by filing separate written statements, whereafter issues were framed and evidence were led and the suit is running for final argument. - 2 - 4. It transpires that in the meantime on 04.01.2007, the defendant -petitioner filed an application for allowing him to produce two more witnesses in the suit. The said application was allowed by the learned court below vide order dated 19.01.2007, but that was made subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000.00. This order of cost is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the said order and submits that delay was caused not by the petitioner, who was defendant no.5 in the suit, rather it was due to the plaintiff himself who filed an application for substitution of the heirs of defendant no.6 on 03.02.2007, although she had died 13 years back on 18.07.1994, hence he submits that there was no occasion for levying such heavy cost upon the defendant-petitioner. 6. From the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the materials on record including the impugned order, it is quite apparent that although defendant no.6 had died in the year 1994, but his estate was fully represented by her husband, who was also party to the suit as defendant no.4, hence, there was no question of any delay in the filing of the substitution application. Furthermore, defendant no.5 not being the heir of defendant no.6, there was no question or any reason for such a long and inordinate delay in producing further witnesses as the evidence of defendant no.5 had already been closed in the year 1991. 7. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor - 3 - does it find any jurisdictional error therein, rather this court feels that the court has taken a very lenient attitude towards defendant no.5- petitioner in allowing his application. However, in the meantime, if defendant no.5-petitioner has produced the affidavit of examination- in-chief of his two witnesses as per his claim and also if the suit has not proceeded any further, defendant no.-5-petitioner must deposit within one month from today in the court below the aforesaid cost of Rs.2,000.00 along with any other cost, if levied by the learned court below during this period, failing which further witnesses of defendant no.5-petitioner shall not be considered and the suit shall proceed for arguments and final disposal. 8. Since this suit is already 27 years old, the learned court below is directed to dispose it of expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the said directions this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)