IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No. 242 of 2007 1. Sheo Bachan Singh, Managing Director, M/s Arya Enterprises and Cold Storage Private Limited, Gayghat, P.S. Harsidhi, District East Champaran 2. Sukhen Singh 3. Ram Lakhan Singh 4. Hari Lal Singh, all are sons of late Kailash Singh 5.Ashok Kumar Singh, S/o Sheo Bachan Singh, all are residents of village + P.O. Math Lohiar, Tola Kath Banshi, P.S. Harsidhi, District East Champaran. 6. Kuar Singh Son of Late Saryug Singh, resident of village Majhar, P.S. Turkauliya, District East Champaran. ……….Plaintiffs-Oppsoite Parties-Petitioners. Versus 1. Sheo Balak Singh, son of late Dukhi Singh, resident of village + P.O.Gayghat, P.S Harsidhi, District East Champaran 2. Sri Krishna Singh son of late Bali Singh, resident of village Ujjain Loiar, P.S. Gayghat, P.S. Harsidhi, District East Champaran 3. Jagdish Singh son of late Ganesh Singh, resident of village Math Lohiar, P.O. Math Lohiar, P.S. Harsidhi, District East Champaran, 4. Ramanugrah Singh son of late Indrajeet Singh, resident of village Ujjain Lohiar, P.O. Gayghat, P.S. Hrsidhi, District East Champaran. ….Defendants-Petitioners-Opposite Parties 1st set. 5. Raja Ram Singh son of late Kailash Singh, resident of village Math Lohiar, tola Kathbanshi, P.S. Harsidhi, District East Champaran. …Plaintiff-Opposite Party-Opposite Party 2nd set. For the petitioners :Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. For the opposite parties : Mr. Rajendra Narain, Advocate. ----------- 03/ 09.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties. This civil revision has been filed by plaintiffs-opposite parties-petitioners challenging order dated 15.01.2007 passed in 2 Misc. Case no.06 of 2006 by which the learned Subordinate Judge- VIII, East Champaran rejected their petition dated 22.07.2006 for recall of the court’s earlier order dated 20.05.2006 and for dismissing the miscellaneous case on the ground of limitation. The aforesaid miscellaneous case has arisen out of Title Suit No.139 of 1994, which was filed by the petitioners along with opposite party no.5 for declaration of title and recovery of possession as well as for other ancillary reliefs. However, when even after issuance of notice and filing of written statements the defendants did not contest the suit at the time of evidence and arguments, the said suit was decreed ex-parte on 24.12.2004 and the decree was signed by the learned court below on 03.01.2005. It further transpires that on 12.04.2006 Misc. Case No.06 of 2006 was filed by the defendants under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the said ex-parte decree. The said miscellaneous case was accompanied by an application for condoning the delay in the filing of the miscellaneous case under section 123 of the Limitation Act whereafter the court below vide its order dated 20.05.2006 condoned the delay and admitted the miscellaneous case. It further transpires that much thereafter on 22.07.2006 the plaintiffs, who appeared in the miscellaneous case as opposite parties, filed an application on 22.07.2006 for recall of earlier order dated 20.05.2006 and for dismissing the miscellaneous case as barred by the law of limitation. The said application of the plaintiffs has been rejected by the learned court below vide its impugned order 3 dated 15.01.2007. From the averments made by learned counsel for the parties as well as the materials on record, including the impugned order of the learned court below, it is quite apparent that the learned court below considered the entire matter in detail and thereafter came to the conclusion that the defendants had duly satisfied the court by showing genuine reasons for delay in the filing of the miscellaneous case from the date of the ex-parte decree till the date of the filing of the miscellaneous case and hence there was no question for that court to recall its order dated 20.05.2006. It was further held that so far the issues raised by the plaintiffs with regard to the question of non-appearance of the defendants in the suit at the time of evidence and arguments was concerned, those were the issues which were to be decided at the time of final hearing of the miscellaneous case and cannot be dealt at the preliminary stage as it was the main question to be decided in the miscellaneous case. In the said circumstances this court finds that the learned court below was quite justified in passing its impugned order and the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported in AIR 1992 Delhi 22 does not have any bearing on the facts and circumstances of this case. Hence this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J)