IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2206 of 2006 1. LALAN SINGH, SON OF RAM NATH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-CHILHAR, P.S. SAHAR (AZIMABAD), DISTRICT- BHOJPUR…..(DEFENDANT NO.1). 2. LAKHAN SINGH. 3. BIRIJA SINGH. BOTH SONS OF JANKI SINGH. …………..(DEFENDANT NO.2 AND 3). BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-CHIPURA, P.S. SAHAR (AZIMABAD), DISTRICT-BHOJPUR. ………………………………………………………PETITIONERS. Versus RAJ KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SAMAN DEEP SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-CHIPURA, P.S. SAHAR (AZIMABAD), DISTRICT- BHOJPUR. ……………………………………………PLAINTIFF-OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioners : M/s. Suryadeo Yadav and Munna Prasad Singh, Advocates. For Plaintiff-Opposite Party : M/s. Ram Chandra Singh, Jitendra Kumar Singh and Nand Lal Singh, Advocates. ------------- 5. 7.9.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 25.8.2006 passed by the learned Sub Judge-II, Arrah, in Title Suit No.91 of 1999, whereby the prayer of the petitioners for recall of five plaintiff’s witnesses for their cross- examination has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that once written statement was accepted after imposing cost, the cross- examination of plaintiff’s witnesses examined prior to that ought to have been allowed, otherwise, the acceptance of written statement would be meaningless. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party submitted - 2 - that the conduct of the petitioners already stands described in the order sheet. It would be manifest therefrom that they had defaulted in filing of written statements on several occasions. The suit was posted for ex parte hearing. Thereafter, the orders were recalled imposing cost. The petitioners again failed to file written statement. However, even after defaulting on several occasions, the court below had accepted the filing of written statements on 13.6.2005 whereas at that time the plaintiff’s witnesses had already been examined. Thus, in view of the aforesaid conduct of the petitioners, the court below had rightly rejected their prayer for recall of plaintiff’s witnesses. It is manifest from the impugned order dated 25.8.2006 that the petitioners had been negligent on several occasions, and once suit was posted for ex parte hearing also. Subsequently, that order was recalled and defendants were directed to file written statement which was also not filed by the defendants as per the direction of the court below. Thereafter, the court below again allowed the defendant’s prayer and accepted the written statement filed on behalf of them on 13.6.2005. However, the petition for recall of the witnesses for cross- examination was filed prior to the acceptance of the written statement. That petition was pressed on 25.8.2006 and the same had been rejected by the impugned order. In my opinion, even assuming that there was negligence on the part of the petitioners, once the written statement was accepted by the court below then the plaintiff’s witnesses examined prior to such acceptance, should have been allowed to be cross-examined in the - 3 - interest of justice. In view of the above, I allow this Civil Revision, set aside the order dated 25.8.2006 and direct the learned court below to allow the defendants-petitioners to cross-examining the plaintiff’s witnesses. However, due to the conduct of the defendants-petitioners much delay has been caused in disposal of the Title Suit which is of the year 1999, this order will be subject to depositing cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in favour of the plaintiff within two months from today. It is also made clear that since the Title suit is of the year 1999, the court concerned will fix a short date for such cross examination and the petitioners should remain present on each and every date. The court below shall not adjourn the matter unless it is required in the interest of justice. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)