ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Service of notice on sole respondent was effected validly after three attempts, but she has not appeared in the present proceeding. Even though on 27th November, 2014 when the matter was earlier taken up, it was adjourned to give one more chance to sole respondent to appear, however, the sole respondent has not entered appearance till date. Therefore, there is no opposition to the prayer of the petitioners. 3. On 9th December, 2005 while issuing notices to sole respondent, learned Trial Court was restrained from delivering the judgment. However, later on by order dated 21st December, 2005, proceedings in Partition Suit no. 22/2004 was stayed until further orders. As per the report of learned Sub-Judge (Sr. Div.)-II, Giridih through letter dated 4th March, 2017, the suit is pending awaiting further orders from this Court in the instant writ petition. 4. By the impugned order dated 8th September, 2005 learned Sub-Judge-I, Giridih in Partition Suit no. 22/2004 has declined the prayer to allow the defendants/petitioners herein to adduce their evidence after it was closed earlier on 4th June, 2005 itself (Annexure1 also impugned herein). Learned Trial Court observed that after closure of petitioners' evidence on 28th March, 2005, defendants were directed to file list of witnesses and on subsequent dates thereafter i.e. 29th April, 2005; 16th May, 2005 and 4th June, 2005 they could not adduce oral/documentary evidence. The matter was adjourned by way of last chance. The evidence of defendants was therefore closed and the case was fixed for argument. Thereafter, the list of witnesses have been filed and a petition under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code was moved on 16th June, 2005, seeking recall of the order dated 4th June, 2005. Learned Trial Court has not found any special reasons why oral and documentary evidence were not produced by them. It also observed that inherent powers under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure could not be used in the presence of specific provision under Order-XIII of Civil Procedure Code and in conflict thereof. Therefore, prayer has been declined. 5. Counsel for the petitioners has averred to the reasons stated at para9 of the instant writ petition and submitted that though list of witnesses were supplied by the defendants to the conducting lawyer, but the same could not be filed despite assurances. Therefore, prayer has been declined. 5. Counsel for the petitioners has averred to the reasons stated at para9 of the instant writ petition and submitted that though list of witnesses were supplied by the defendants to the conducting lawyer, but the same could not be filed despite assurances. Only after passing of the order dated 4th June, 2005, were they surprised to know that their evidence has been closed. It is submitted that the suit is for partition of property. Defendants have taken a plea that the sale-deed of the plaintiff executed by one Bisheshwar Choudhary clearly speaks partition amongst Harihar Chouidhary and his brothers being sons of Dwarika Choudhjary. As such the suit for partition is not at all maintainable. 6. Counsel for the petitioners submits that defendants may therefore be allowed to adduce their evidence in a strict time frame subject to any cost that may be considered appropriate. 7. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the impugned orders including the averments made in the writ petition. The defendants appear to have not complied with the orders passed by learned Trial Court in the matter of filing of their list of witnesses and production of their oral/documentary evidence for three dates. Thereafter their evidence was closed on 4th June, 2005 vide Annexure1. It appears that grounds taken by the petitioners in the present writ application have however not been urged before learned Trial Court when the matter was being considered on their recall petition dated 16th June, 2005. However, taking an overall view of the matter and in the interest of justice, it is deemed appropriate that defendants/petitioners herein be allowed indulgence to adduce their witness within a strict time frame of 4 weeks from today, subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 2,500/ to the plaintiff/sole respondent. Learned Trial Court would not grant any unnecessary adjournments to the parties and after conclusion of defendants' witnesses on or before time stipulated hereinabove, proceed to decide the suit expeditiously preferably within a period of 8 weeks thereafter. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid term. The interim orders are accordingly vacated.