IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.393 of 2008 Misri Prasad Sah, son of late Ganga Prasad Sah, resident of village, Post Office and Police Station Pratapganj, District- Supaul ---- Plaintiff--- Petitioner. Versus 1. Ram Prasad Sah, son of Hazari Sah 2. Jai Prakash Sah, son of Hazari Sah 3. Raju Prasad Sah, son of Hazari Sah. 4. Sohan Lal Ganj, son of Indrachand Gang 5. Shambhu Rawat, son of Bipin Rawat., All residents of Village, Post Office and Police Station_Pratapganj, District- Supaul ----- Defendants --- Opposite Parties. 6. Kishori Prasad Sah @ Kishun Prasad Sah 7. Dinesh Prasad Sah 8. Umesh Prasad Sah, all sons of late Ganga Prasad Sah, resident of Village, Post Office and Police Station- Pratapganj, District- Supaul --- Plaintiff/Opposite Parties --- Opposite Parties. ------------- 2. 3.8.2010 Heard Mr. Amar Nath Jha for the petitioner. This application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the plaintiff of Title Suit 8 of 1996 (Misri Prasad Sah Vrs. Ram Prasad Sah), and is directed against the order dated 21.1.2008, passed by the learned Munsif, Birpur, whereby his application for recall of the order dated 25.8.2005, has been rejected. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that the plaintiff (petitioner herein) had closed his evidence on 26.7.2004. He filed an 2 application on 20.8.2004, praying therein that he may be permitted to lead further evidence which was rejected. He filed civil revision application before this Court bearing C.R. No. 1694 of 2004, which was allowed by this Court on 29.7.2005, he was permitted to lead further evidence after deposit of costs of Rs.250/- within 15 days from the date of the order. This Court had further directed that the suit will proceed on day-to-day basis. In spite of repeated opportunities, the plaintiff did not comply with the order regarding deposit of costs within the time granted by this Court. In fact, he was granted further opportunity by the learned trial court for the purpose which he failed to avail as a result of which he was not permitted to lead further evidence. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the aforesaid application on 23.11.2007, for permission to lead further evidence which has been rejected by the impugned order. It appears from a perusal of the impugned order that it is a suit of 1996, and the plaintiff has been making persistent efforts to delay the disposal of the suit. Keeping in view totality of the circumstances, we entirely agree with the impugned order. There is no merit in this application. 3 In the result, this application is rejected. Learned trial court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of three months and report compliance to this Court. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. )