IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.937 of 2008 BINDESHWAR PASWAN Versus AMIR PASWAN & ORS ----------- 2 3/7/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.3.2008, whereby and whereunder, the application dated 17.5.2007 invoking provisions under Order IX Rule 7 of the C.P.C. for recalling the order of exparte hearing has been rejected. Counsel for the petitioner submits that true it is that provisions of Order IX Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code will not apply to the facts of this case because hearing had already been completed and in fact on 15.5.2007 case was posted for judgment whereafter only the petitioner having acquired knowledge of the present suit and had filed a petition on 17.5.2007 for recalling of exparte hearing. Counsel for the petitioner submits that, as a matter of fact, there was no proper service of summons on the petitioner and in fact the court below has also recorded this fact before posting the case for judgment. In the opinion of this Court, the moment counsel for the petitioner concedes that there will be no applicability of Order IX Rule 7 of the C.P.C, the court had no option but to reject the application because at the stage when the case was fixed for judgment when the petitioner had appeared and had asked to recall the order fixing the case for exparte hearing. Submission of the counsel for the petitioner that either the same 2 would lead to multiplicity of the litigations and therefore the court below could have taken recourse to the provisions of section 151 of the C.P.C, is also misconceived because once he had made a prayer for setting aside the order of exparte hearing it was duty of the petitioner to first find out from the records as to on which date or by which order the said order was passed by the court below for putting the case on exparte hearing. That having been not done by the petitioner, this Court would not substitute its opinion specially when the court below has recorded cogent reasons showing deliberate laches on the part of the petitioner and has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ‘Arjun Singh Vs. Mohinder Singh & other’ reported in AIR 1964 S.C. 993. Be that as it may, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, muchless, the same cannot be said to be vitiated under law. There being no merit in this civil revision application, the same is accordingly dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar