IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.352 of 2007 Guru Prasad Sah son of Vakil Sah, resident of village Sahsoul, P.S. Sonbarsa, District Saharsa …….Defendant 4th party-Petitioner. Versus 1. Jagdeo Sah son of Late Bhanu Sah 2. Dhyani Sah 3. Raj Kishore Sah 4. Chandeshwari Sah, Sons of Sri Jagdeo Sah ………..Plaintiffs 1st party-opposite party 1st set 5. Ramdeo Sah son of Late Bhanu Sah 6. Rajendra Sah son of Ramdeo Sah 7. Prem Lal Sah (minor) son of Ramdeo Sah, Represented through his father namely Ramdeo Sah S/o Late Bhanu Sah. …………Plaintiffs 2nd party-Opposite party 2nd set 8. Mahendra Sah son of Late Bhanu Sah 9. Ashok Kumar Sah, son of Mahendra Sah 10. Prakash Sah (minor) son of Mahendra Sah, represented through his father namely Ramdeo Sah S/o Late Bahnu Sah ..Plaintiffs 3rd party-Opposite party 3rd set. 11. Smt. Bechani Devi D/o Late Ramji Sah …….Defendant 1set party-Opposite party 4th set All are resident of village Sahsaul, P.S. Sonbarsa, District Saharsa. For the petitioner : M/s Subodh Kumar Jha and Amrendra Kumar, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 02/ 31.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by one of the defendants-petitioner challenging order dated 24.01.2007 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-III, Saharsa rejected his petition dated 14.08.2006 for recalling the earlier order of the learned court below dated 27.02.2006 by which his evidence was closed in Title Suit 2 No.05 of 2001. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiffs-opposite parties for correcting the revisional survey khatian and also for other ancillary reliefs. It transpires that the defendants appeared in the said suit and filed their written statements whereafter issues were framed and plaintiffs’ evidence was led and the case was adjourned on eight dates from 08.09.2005 to 27.02.2006 for the evidence of the defendant-petitioner but when neither any pairvi was done nor any evidence was produced on his behalf, his evidence was closed on 27.02.2006. 4. It further transpires that thereafter arguments started and the arguments on behalf of the plaintiffs were made in part and only thereafter the aforesaid application was filed by the defendant- petitioner in the suit on 14.08.2006 for recall of the earlier order dated 27.02.2006 by which his evidence was closed. The learned court below considered the matter in detail and found that the defendant-petitioner was given sufficient opportunity for producing his evidence but in spite of that he did not produce his evidence intentionally, although he was fully aware of the facts and circumstances of the suit and even pairvi in the suit was left by him. Considering these facts and circumstances, the learned court below rejected the application of the defendant-petitioner vide the impugned order. 5. This court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below 3 as no valid ground was raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )