IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2064 of 2006 1. HABIBULLAH KHAN 2. Tankir Khan @ Tawkir Khan, Sons of Late Amin Khan 3. Asama Khatoon 4. Ayasha Khatoon @ Aisha Khatoon 5. Ashmul Khatoon 6. Umar Khan 7. Faijula Khan@ Fajula Khan, All daughters of Late Amin Khan All residents of Katalpur, P.O. Katalpur, P.S. Bailkunthpur, Gopalganj --------- Defendents 2nd Set ---Petitioners Versus 1. SARSWATI LAL GIRI S/O Gokh Giri , resident of Village and P.O. Khajuhatti, P.S. Baikunthpur, District-Gopalganj ---------- Plaintiff- Opp.Party 1st Set 2. Most. Sama Kuer W/O Late Chandrika Bari 3. Akhilesh Bari S/O Late Chandrika Bari Both resident of Village and P.O. Kandara, District- Singhbhum(Jharkhand) 4. Hridaya Kumari D/O Late Chandrika Bari, resident of Village and P.O. Khajuhatti, P.S. Baikunthpur, District-Gopalganj 5. Hira Devi W/O Rikhideo Bari D/O Late Chandrika Bari resident of Village-Balra, Dubey Tola), P.S. Mohammandpur, District-Gopalganj 6. Jira Devi W/O Badan Bari, daughter of Late Chandrika Bari, resident of Village & P.O Candhana, P.S. Masharakh, District- Saran 7. Sita Devi W/O Santu Bari & D/O Late Chandrika Bari, resident of Village & P.O. Godhana, P.S. Mashrakh, District-Saran. 8. Phoolmati Devi W/O Jagdish Bari & D/O Late Chandrika Bari, resident of Village and P.O. Avtar Nagar, District-Saran -- Defendant 1st Set - Opp.Parties IInd Set. ----------- For the petitioners: M/s.Ashutosh Jha, Narendra Pandey, and Bijay Kant Mishra, Advocates. - 2 - For Opp.Parties: M/S Awadhesh Kr.Pandey, and Ajay Dubey, Advocates ------------ 18 17-11-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the Opp. Parties, though Opp.Party no.1 has already entered appearance by filing Vakalatnama. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 8.9.2006 passed by the 1st Addl.Munsif , Gopalganj in Title Suit No.252 of 1969 , whereby the defendant-petitioners’prayer for recall of the order of closure of evidence on the part of the defendants has been refused by the court concerned. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that earlier the suit, which was filed for specific performance of contract, was dismissed and the plaintiff-Opp.Party 1st set preferred Title Suit No.68 of 1979. The appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial court for framing issue with regard to the ante-dating of the sale deed which had been brought on record as Ext.2. The trial court was directed to re-frame that issue and decide the matter afresh. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite of that direction, the defendants have not been allowed to lead evidence with respect to the ante-dating of Ext.2, which is the - 3 - document , upon which the order of remand was passed by the appellate court. I have heard the petitioners and perused the records of the case. From the impugned order dated 8.9.2006 , it is manifest that after remand, the issues were framed and the defendants- petitioners were given opportunity to lead evidence and they had led the evidence also. On 27.8.2004 the last witness, namely, Mohar Rai examined as defendant witness. Thereafter, on 2.9.2004, upon submission of the defendant, his evidence was closed and the matter was posted for hearing (arguments) by the parties. On 11.9.2004 , the argument was advanced on behalf of the defendants which continued and concluded on 30.3.2005 . Thereafter, records were transferred to another court and on 28.11.2005 , the defendants again argued the matter and at that point of time they had filed a petition for re-opening of their evidence, as no evidence could be led by them on the point of ante-dating Ext.2. The trial court after hearing the submission has come to the conclusion that ample opportunity was given to the defendants for leading evidence and in fact, evidence was led by them and even argument has been concluded on their behalf. The - 4 - application for re-opening of their evidence was merely dilatory tactics and the trial court had, thus, rejected the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point any jurisdictional error having been committed by the court concerned. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this Civil Revision application. This Civil Revision is dismissed. NKS/- ( Dr.Ravi Ranjan, J)