IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.464 of 2009 1. DR.JITENDRA NARAYAN @ JITENDRA NARAYAN, SON OF LATE RAMDEO NARAYAN PRASAD. 2. DR. KUMARI BHARATI, W/O DR. JITENDRA NARAYAN. BOTH RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA-ANDHARIA BAGH BELWAGANJ, P.S.-LAHERIA SARAI, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. ……………DEFENDANTS/PETITIONERS. Versus SMT.VANI VERMA, W/O SRI MANOJ KUMAR, R/O MOHALLA- BELWAGANJ, P.S.-LAHERIA SARAI, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. ………………PLAINTIFF/OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- 2 24.03.2009 The defendants have filed this revision application against order dated 9.2.2009 passed in Eviction Suit No. 15 of 2006 by learned Munsif Ist, Darbhanga by which the application of the defendants for recall of plaintiff witness no. 9 for cross- examination, has been refused. From the impugned order, it appears that the said witness was produced and examined on 16.1.2009 when the learned counsel for the defendants refused to examine him on the ground that he was unwell. A petition was filed on behalf of the plaintiff that learned counsel for the defendants was sitting in the Association and he deliberately did not cross-examine the witness and therefore, the witness be discharged. On the petition of the plaintiff, 2 the witness was discharged. Soon thereafter i.e. after five days the petition was filed for recall of the witness. The learned court below has accepted the stand of the plaintiff taken in the petition filed in opposition and also noticed that the witness is an employee of the State Bank of India, Patna. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners submits that the petitioners are ready to pay the entire cost of traveling of the PW9 from Patna to Darbhanga, to and fro, and his expenses for attending the Court for his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the defendants. In view of such submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, the order dated 9.2.2009 is set aside and learned court below is directed to assess the cost of traveling of the said PW9, to and fro, and his expenses in attending the court which shall be deposited by the defendants in the Court within one week. In case the entire cost is deposited within one week, the court 3 below shall fix up a date for appearance of PW9 for his cross-examination and recall him for the purpose on that date, and learned counsel for the defendants shall be asked to cross-examine him. In case the learned counsel for the defendants fails to cross-examine the said witness on the date he appears before the court, the same shall be considered as refusal by the learned counsel for the defendants to cross-examine the witness and he shall be discharged. Thereafter, the court below shall proceed in the suit in accordance with law. With above observations and directions, this revision application is disposed of. In case the defendants fail to deposit the cost within time fixed by the court blow, the court below shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)