permission to produce witnesses. The same was allowed on 5.2.2009 subject to deposit of a cost of Rs.200/-. The witness-Babulal was partially cross-examined. Thereafter he did not appear. On 25.06.2009, another opportunity was given to the plaintiffs subject to deposit of a cost of Rs.200/-. The witnesses never appeared on the next date which resulted in the evidence of the plaintiffs being closed on 9.9.2009. The plaintiff-Lakhi Mahto had submitted an application that those witnesses, who have previously filed their statements be allowed to be produced. The same was allowed on 16.12.2009 only to the extent of production of those witnesses, who have given their statements for their cross examination subject to deposit of a cost of Rs.1,000/- to the defendants. The matter thereafter kept lingering for non-production of the witnesses. On 22.2.2011, one Sadhu Mahto was examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. On 8.2.2012, the defendants were directed to produce their witnesses and the petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that no formal order of closure of plaintiffs’ evidence has been passed. The plaintiffs filed an application under section 151 of C.P.C. for recalling the order dated 8.2.2012 on the ground that they were directed to produce witnesses on 16.12.2009 and one witness was examined on 22.2.2011 and on 19.10.2011, the Presiding Officer was transferred and all of a sudden, the order dated 8.2.2012 was passed directing the defendants to produce witnesses thereby preventing the plaintiffs to adduce further evidence. The said application was rejected on 26.11.2012 since a similar application was already rejected on 8.8.2012.
