IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1655 of 2008 SITARAM PASWAN Versus DILIP KUMAR PRASAD & ANR ----------- 2 26.09.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. This Court would realise that the initial resistance came from the petitioner in course of delivery of possession and when the delivery of possession was effected through the process of Court he now comes out to oppose the cost incurred in such delivery of possession. It would only go to show that the petitioner is a shrewd and veteran litigant and would like to keep the matter pending ad infinitum. The execution case of the year, 2003 must be now closed and for that purpose the petitioner as prayed for is allowed to pay the cost as fixed by the Court within a period of two months. With the aforementioned observations and directions this Civil Revision application is disposed of. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)