2025:JHHC:26169 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 392 of 2025 ------ Uday Shankar Prasad, son of Late Baldeev Sah, resident of Lohardaga P.O. & P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga (Jharkhand), represented through his Power of Attorney Holder, namely Pramod Kumar, son of Ishwarnath Saw, resident of Jaridih Bazar, Kalali Road, P.O. & P.S. Berma, Berma, District Bokaro (Jharkhand) .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, son of Late Ramji Pandey 2. Duleshwaro Devi, wife of Late Ramji Pandey Both residents of Sector VI/B, Qr. No.1082, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro (Jharkhand) 3. Santosh Kumar, son of Baldeo Prasad, resident of Bypass Road, P.O. & P.S. Chas, District Bokaro (Jharkhand) 4. Ashutosh Dubey, son of Surendra Dubey, resident of Kunwar Singh Colony, P.O. & P.S. Chas, District Bokaro (Jharkhand) .... .... .... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, Advocate Mr. Alok Kumar Verma, Advocate Order No.06 / Dated : 29.08.2025 Instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed on behalf of plaintiff/petitioner for setting aside the order dated 21.01.2025 passed in Original Suit No.24/2020 by which the petition dated 09.12.2024 filed under Order XXVI, Rule 4(1)(a) of the CPC has been rejected. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that the plaintiff is more than 85 years old and suffering from various ailments and infirmities and was living at Ranchi, whereas the trial of the case is taking place at Bokaro. In view of the physical debilitating state, the petition was filed which has been rejected on the ground that since the power of attorney holder has been examined, therefore, there was no requirement of examination of the plaintiff. The said order has been passed under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC, it is the plaintiff, who is to be examined first. 3. It is submitted that so far as requirement of examination of plaintiff at the inception is concerned, it is not mandatory, rather directory. Further, provision for examination on affidavit and cross-examination and re- examination before a Commissioner has been provided in C.P.C. 4. Learned counsel on behalf of defendants/opposite parties has 2025:JHHC:26169 defended the impugned order. 5. I find merit in the submission advanced on behalf of petitioner so far as proposition of law canvassed is that Order XVIII Rule 2 of the CPC is concerned is not mandatory in nature and does not oust the plaintiff from examination after other witnesses have been examined. Merely because some other witness has been examined, plaintiff cannot be refused to be examined. However, considering the nature of the present suit involving title, it will be desirable that cross-examination is done in the Court itself. Learned trial Court will see to it that once the case is fixed for cross- examination of this witness, it will be taken-up on priority basis and without granting any adjournment to the defendants in the cross- examination. Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit