Uma Shankar Chaudhary v. Jaga Mahto And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.364 of 2014 ====================================================== Uma Shankar Chaudhary .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

Jaga Mahto & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 16-12-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By the impugned order dated 17.07.2013 the learned Subordinate Judge-VII, Rohtas in Title Suit No.11 of 2009 rejected the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for recall of the order whereby his evidence was closed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff's evidence was going on and already he has examined eight witnesses. The plaintiff was to adduce some documentary evidences and for that some formal witnesses were to be examined but the court below rejected the application for recall on the ground of delay. The learned counsel further submitted that within three months he will prove all the documents and for proving the documents he will also examine formal witnesses within the aforesaid period and, therefore, the

Patna High Court CWJC No.364 of 2014 (3) dt.16-12-2015 petitioner's case may be re-opened.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposed on the ground that the petitioner is lingering the matter because he is in possession of the major portion of the property and has filed this partition suit against his own father and the step-mother and their children.

5. In view of the submission of the learned counsel that within three months he will produce all the documentary evidences and for proving the documents he will examine formal witnesses, it is desirable that the petitioner be granted one chance as in the present case on the date of passing the impugned order the defendants' evidence had not been started. In my opinion, if no chance is given to the petitioner, it will cause failure of justice.

6. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the plaintiff-petitioner's case is reopened. The petitioner is allowed to adduce documentary evidences and to prove the documents he is allowed to examine formal witnesses within three months after X-mas holidays.

7. It is expected that the respondents shall assist the Court and shall not pray for any unnecessary adjournments as assured by the learned counsel for the respondents. Harish/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) U