IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7524 of 2010 1. MOSMAT BADRU NISHA, W/O LATE MD. SAHID. 2. MD. RASHID ALAM, S/O LATE MD. SAHID. 3. MD. SIMU ALAM, S/O LATE MD. SAHID. 4. MD. FARID ALAM, MINOR SON OF LATE MD. SAHID UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS MOTHER MOSTT. BADRU NISHA. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-BARI KHAGAUL, P.O. AND P.S.- KHAGAUL, DISTRICT-PATNA. (DEFENDANTS 1ST SET IN COURT BELOW)-PETITIONER. Versus 1. LEELA DEVI, W/O DINANATH PRASAD. 2. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O LATE DINANATH PRASAD BOTH R/O BARI KHAGAUL, P.O. AND P.S.- KHAGAUL, DISTRICT-PATNA. PLAINTIFFS IN COURT BELOW)/ RESPONDENTS1ST SET. 3. SAIYADA KHATOON @ SALIDS, W/O MD. NIZAM OF BARI KHAGAUL, KHAGAUL, DISTRICT-PATNA; AT PRESENT R/O QR. NO. 739 ‘B’ LALOO COLONY, P.O. AND P.S.-KHAGAUL, DISTRICT-PATNA. ………….(DEFENDANT 2ND SET IN THE COURT BELOW)/ RESPONDENT 2ND SET. ---------- For the petitioners : Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh ,Advocate. For the respondents : None. ------- 2 18-08-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This writ petition is directed against order dated 23- 2-2010 passed in Title Suit No. 55 of 2001 by which Munsif, Danapur, Patna rejected the application filed by the defendants- petitioners for recalling the witnesses of the other side for cross- examination and for allowing them to produce their evidence. 3. From the facts and circumstances it is apparent that the aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for declaration of their title and recovery of possession with respect to the suit properties on the basis of a registered sale deed. It is also apparent that in the said suit all the defendants, including the 2 petitioners, filed their pleadings, whereafter issues were framed, but the petitioners did not lead any evidence, although the opportunity was given to them. It may be noted that defendants- petitioners belong to the same family to which the other defendants belong and the other defendants produced their evidence contesting the claim of the plaintiffs. It is also quite apparent that in the said suit evidence was completed and closed, whereafter arguments of the parties started and after considerable progress in the argument, the said application had been filed by the petitioners, who were defendant nos. 1 to3 in the said suit. 4. From the facts and circumstances of the case as well as from the findings of the Court below, it is quite apparent that the petitioners are trying merely to delay the disposal of the suit and as such their application at this stage could not legally be allowed. 5. This Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order nor does it find any merit in this writ petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. S.P. (S. N. Hussain, J.)