IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2160 of 2007 UMA SHANKAR SINGH & ANR Versus RAJ KUMARI KUAR & ORS With C.R. No.2226 of 2007 UMA SHANKER SINGH & ANR Versus RAJ KUMARI KUER & ORS ----------- 2 25.8.2008 Heard Counsel for the defendant-petitioners. Both these civil revision applications are against the two parts of the impugned order dated 4.10.2007. Counsel for the petitioner with relation to the first part of the order would submit that it was partly on account of non-availability of the Counsel for the petitioner that the evidence of the petitioner could not be adduced on the fixed date and that the petitioner is ready to compensate for the harassment caused to the plaintiff on account of such conduct. This Court would find that the plaintiff had completed their evidence and thereafter the defendants were asked to adduce their evidence from 12.3.2007. The order of the Court below would indicate that from 12.3.2007, the defendants had been delaying in producing the witnesses and consequently, the impugned order dated 4.10.2007 came to be passed closing their evidence on account of complete non- cooperation. The Court below in fact has also noted that 2 the defendants had also not submitted their list of witnesses. This Court normally would not have allowed the defendant-petitioners to produce their further evidence but taking into account that they have already adduced evidence of 5 to 6 witnesses and are desirous of examining only 3 to 4 more witnesses this Court in the interest of justice would allow the petitioners to complete their evidence within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order subject to a condition that the petitioners would pay a sum of Rs. 7,500/- (seven thousand five hundred) to the plaintiffs within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. As with regard to the second part of the impugned order, this Court would not find any reason to allow the petitioner to produce document which were never sought to be produced by them as is apparent from paragraph no.7 of the impugned order. This Court would find that even up to 28.9.2007, the defendants had not produced the list of document and therefore, the plea that some of the documents were available in another suit being Title Suit No. 50/2001 and the same was allowed to be taken record by an earlier order dated 28.9.2007 by itself would not be a sufficient ground to allow the petitioners 3 to produce those documents if facts with regard to those documents were not earlier stated by them in the written statement. Consequently, this Court would find that adducing of certain documentary evidence, not originally pleaded in the written statement, it allowed to be taken in their evidence would infact amount to reopening of the whole trial. In that view of the matter, this Court would only direct the Court below to take into account only such documentary evidence of the petitioners traces or references whereof is already existing in the written statement. With the aforesaid observations and directions, both these civil revision applications are hereby disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)