IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1497 of 2006 ZAKI AHMAD KHAN Versus ABBASIA KHANAM @ CHANDO ----------- 2 28.11.2008 No one appears for the petitioner. The approach of the Court below in rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner for reopening the evidence after recalling the order dated 15.2.2006 closing the evidence of the plaintiff, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The Court below in fact has noted that the first witness of the plaintiff in a suit of the year 1988 was examined on 30.6.1995 and in a span of 10 years the plaintiff could produce only 15 witnesses. The evidence of the plaintiff was closed earlier by an order dated 30.6.2004 but the same was recalled on 5.7.2004 on the prayer of the plaintiff by recording that the plaintiff would complete his evidence within a short span. It is the finding of the Court below in the impugned order that even after 5.7.2004, the plaintiff did not choose to lead any evidence and ultimately the Court by order dated 15.2.2006 had again passed an order for closing the evidence of the plaintiff. The submission of the counsel for the plaintiff in the Court below as with regard to the illness of the plaintiff and is being treated at Jamshedpur was also gone noted at some length and the - 2 - Court below has recorded that there was no documentary proof of such treatment of the plaintiff. If after all these detailed observations, the Court below has refused to reopen the evidence of the plaintiff, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order specially when there is no manifest jurisdictional error in the impugned order. With the aforementioned observations this Civil Revision application is dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)