JUDGMENT This is a petition by the applicant. He has filed a complaint against the respondent. The applicant is aggrieved by the order of the trial Court whereby the trial Court has closed, the case of the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he has summoned the Govt. witnesses. The witnesses inspite of service did not attend the Court. The trial Court ought to have issued bailable warrants to secure presence of the witnesses but instead of securing their presence, the trial Court has closed the case of the complainant. He is aggrieved by the order dated 18.3.97. On 13.8.97, the complainant was himself present and was examined and on failure to keep other witnesses present, the evidence was closed. The learned counsel submitted that the Revisional Court had passed an order directing the complainant to keep his witnesses present in Court on 18.3.97. On that date, he was present but his witnesses were not present. His case was closed. The applicant submitted that he has summoned the witnesses and those witnesses, Namely Dr. Arun Shrivastava and a Police Head Constable had not appeared in Court inspite of notices issued to them and he submitted that an opportunity ought to have been given to the applicant to adduce evidence. In this case, the counsel for the respondent stated that inspite of giving opportunities to the applicant, witnesses have not been produced. The trial Court has not committed any error in closing the case of the applicant. I have perused the record. The applicant filed a criminal revision No. 126/95 before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad. This revision was decided on 23.5.96. Subsequently, another revision was filed by respondent which was registered as Cr. Revision No. 6/97. In this case, it was prayed that the complaint filed against the respondent be dismissed as it was the complaint of 8.6.92 and the respondent is appearing from 30th January, 1993. Inspite of repeated opportunities to the complainant, he has not adduced any evidence. An application was filed by the complainant on 20th November, 1996 in the High Court. In that case, it was directed that the parties should appear before the trial Court and the trial Court shall decide the application. The trial Court has dismissed that application without application of mind. An application was filed by the complainant on 20th November, 1996 in the High Court. In that case, it was directed that the parties should appear before the trial Court and the trial Court shall decide the application. The trial Court has dismissed that application without application of mind. The Revisional Court has considered the interlocutory application in revision and directed that the case be heard. Parties should appear on the next date and case be decided. The approach of the Revisional Court in Cr. Revision No. 6/97 itself was improper as it has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision against the interlocutory order. However, this order was not challenged. At any rate the order itself is without jurisdiction. However on perusal of the record, it is clear that the applicant is not taking any interest in disposal of the case and the case is being adjourned from time to time. He has no intention to proceed with the trial by keeping the case pending for a long time. In the present case, inspite of several opportunities to the applicant, witnesses were not kept present and the case is pending from the year 1992. However, in the interest of justice, it is directed that one opportunity should be provided ,to the applicant to adduce evidence. The applicant shall take steps to ensure that his witnesses are present in the Court. The trial Court shall give an opportunity to the applicant to adduce evidence and conclude the trial within a period of two months. If it is found by the trial Court that the delay is being caused by him, the proceedings are liable to be quashed by the trial Court itself. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.