IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2157 of 2008 HOSILA SAH Versus HARINATH GIRI & ORS ----------- 2 9/1/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner. While there would be nothing for this Court to hold that the impugned order suffers from any jurisdictional error, in as much as, callousness and negligence on the part of the plaintiff-petitioner is writ large on the face of records and is borne out from perusal of copy of entire order sheet enclosed with this Civil Revision Application. Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, would contend that the plaintiff-petitioner is very poor person and was not in a position to contest the litigation effectively on account of poverty and lack of information. He has also submitted that the petitioner is a rustic villager and is not, in fact, aware with the procedural aspect of law. He would further submit that the plaintiff-petitioner had already adduced evidence of four witnesses but 2 there would be absolute necessity for himself to examine another four witnesses and for this purpose an application seeking recall of the earlier order for closing of evidence of the plaintiff- petitioner was filed. It is true that the plaintiff- petitioner is contesting the civil litigation and cannot be allowed to produce his witnesses at his will, but at the same time this Court is not unmindful about the illiteracy prevailing among the common villagers who have some what also an impression that normally civil cases are filed for its being adjourned only from one date to another. This is a suit of the year 2004 and probably such impression of the petitioner got him carried too far and that is why he has suffered in the matter of contesting the litigation before the Court below, which could have been easily avoided, had he been vigilant in carefully conducting his suit. All these aspects, however, would pale into insignificance if this Court 3 would not take into account the sufferings undergone by the defendants-opposite parties, who on account of callous and negligent attitude of the plaintiff- petitioner have suffered for a period over three years. They had to continuously make pairvi in the Court below and even their three witnesses who have already examined could not be cross-examined on account of callousness and negligence on the part of the petitioner. Thus when the plea of interest of justice is being taken by the petitioner by way claiming equity he also must do equity to the defendant opposite parties. This Court, therefore, would allow prayer of the petitioner for leading his further evidence as also to cross-examine the three witnesses of the defendants on payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the event the petitioner deposits the cost he must complete his evidence with regard to four witnesses only within a period of next two month, 4 whereafter he must completed the cross examination of the three witnesses of the defendant in a period of one month from the date of closure of his own evidence. Any further default on the part of the petitioner in contesting the litigation or carrying out the terms and conditions of this order will be itself sufficient for the court below to proceed ahead without giving any further indulgence to the petitioner. With the above directions and observations this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar