IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.613 of 2007 ---- Smt.Deokala Devi wife of Shree Vijay Kumar Yadav, resident of Benipur, P.S. Bahera, District-Darbhanga. -Defendant no.1-petitioner. Versus 1. Smt.Ram Maya Devi S/O Shree Ram Sagar Thakur, Resident of Village-Basudeopur, Majhoura, P.S. Bahera, District- Darbhanga. -Plaintiff-Opposite Party 1st Set. 2. Surendra Thakur S/O Bhagwan Thakur. 3. Ramesh Thakur S/O Surendra Thakur. 4. Awadh Kishore Thakur S/O Late Nathu Thakur. 5. Kaushal Kishore Thakur 6. Raj Thakur Both sons of Pitamber Thakur 7. Bimla Devi S/o Phuleshwar Thakur 8. Hemant Yadav 9. Arbind Yadav 10. Chanda Lal Yadav All sons of Phuleshwar Thakur 11. Sunita Devi W/O Shushil Jha, All resident of Benipur Bharat Chawk, P.S. Bahera, District- Darbhanga. -- Defendants-Opposite parties 2nd Set. ----- For the petitioner : Mr. Sushil Kumar Karn, Advocate Mr.Saroj Kumar, Advocates. For opposite party no.1 : Mr. Saghir Ahmad, Advocate. ---- 03. 07.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite party no.1. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant no.1- petitioner challenging order dated 26.02.2007 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-II, Benipur (Darbhanga) rejected his application to examine further witnesses on his behalf in Title Suit No.27 of 2001 (25/2005). 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole-plaintiff- - 2 - opposite party no.1 for declaration of her title and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was contested by the defendants, whereafter issues were framed and evidence started. 4. It transpires that 12 witnesses have already been examined as per the list of witnesses already given by defendant no.1-petitioner. It further transpires that thereafter another list of further witnesses were given by defendant-petitioner for being examined on her behalf, but the learned court below found that neither their parentage nor their address nor their relevancy for the issues in the suit had been shown by the defendant-petitioner. In the said circumstances, the learned court below was quite justified in rejecting the said application closing the evidence of the defendant and directing the suit to be placed for arguments. 5. This court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below, nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)