R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) Heard the parties.
(2.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner had originally challenged the order dated 25.2.2008 passed by the Sub -Judge, Vth, Dhanbad in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 64 of 1999, allowing the petition filed on behalf of the plaintiff -respondent to close the evidence of the plaintiff. It appears that the defendant -petitioner raised a frivolous contention that the plaintiff should be cross examined at the cost of the plaintiff, which was rejected by order dated 25.5.2007 against which the petitioner and other tenants filed writ petitions being WP (C) Nos. 3930, 3951, 3953, 3954, 3956 and 3962 of 2007 which were dismissed by order dated 23.7.2007. Thereafter the defendant -petitioner did not choose to cross examine the plaintiff, who was examined on commission. The Pleader Commissioner discharged the plaintiff and returned his evidence to the Court. Thereafter the defendant -petitioner filed a petition to recall the plaintiff witness for cross -examination which was allowed on 2.1.2008 on the condition of payment of cost of Rs. 250/ - as pleader Commissioner's expenses and additional expenses of Rs. 500/ - by the next date, failing which, the such petition filed by the defendant -petitioner was to be treated as rejected, but inspite of several opportunities given to him, instead of depositing the said amount of Rs. 500/ -, he contended that the said amount should be recovered from him at the time of passing the judgment and decree in the suit. In these circumstances, the plaintiff -respondent filed a petition for closing his case which was allowed by the impugned order dated 25.2.2008.
(3.) THIS is a suit for eviction of the year 1999. The learned Court below has rightly found that the defendant -petitioner is simply trying to delay the disposal of the suit on one pretext or the other. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 25.2.2008 especially in view of the conduct of the defendant -peitioner.;