IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1627 of 2006 MD. ISLAM, SON OF LATE WAZ, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. DAMALA, POLICE STATION BISFI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI…. PLAINTIFF- PETITIONER Versus 1. HAZI MOHAMMAD ABU JAFAR, SON OF LATE MD. NASIRUL HAQUE, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DAMAHA, POLICE STATION BISFI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI… DEFENDANT-OPPOSITE PARTY IST SET 2. BIBI UNAIZA KHATOON, WIFE OF ABDUL ZAFFAR 3. ABDUL BARIK, SON OF LATE MD. USMAN, BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE & P.O. DAMALA, POLICE STATION BISFI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI… DEFENDANT-OPPOSITE PARTY 2ND SET 4. ABDUL ZABBAR, SON OF LATE MD. USMAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. DAMALA, POLICE STATION BISFI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI… DEFENDANT- OPPOSITE PARTY 3RD SET 5. MD. HAROON 6. MOSFKEEN AHMAD, BOTH SONS OF LATE MAJJU RAHMAN 7. MUNNI BEGUM, WIFE OF MD. ZAKIR AND DAUGHTER OF LATE MAJJU REHMAN, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE & P.O. DAMALA, POLICE STATION BISFI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI… DEFENDANT-OPPOSITE PARTY 4TH SET. ----------- 3. 16.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed this civil revision application against the order dated 25.08.2006 passed by the learned Ist Additional Munsif, Madhubani in Title Suit No.20 of 2004 by which the petition of the plaintiff for recall of the order dated 21.7.2006 has been rejected. By order dated 2 21.7.2006, the time petition filed on behalf of the plaintiff was rejected and the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 21.07.2006 the case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff. However, due to personal difficulty as the wife of the plaintiff fell ill in Calcutta, the plaintiff could not appear in the suit and a time petition was filed. The court below rejected the same and closed the evidence of the plaintiff. He submits that soon thereafter a petition was filed for recall of the said order which has been rejected by the impugned order. From the petition dated 1.8.2006 which was filed for recall of the earlier order, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-1, it appears that illness of the plaintiff and his wife was made a ground for non-appearance of the plaintiff on 21.7.2006 for his evidence. However, the learned court below has rejected the petition merely on the ground that there is a delaying tactics on the part of the plaintiff. The learned court below has not disclosed as to in what manner there was attempt to delay the disposal of the suit by 3 the plaintiff himself when, as per submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the suit was proceeding ex parte against the defendants. The fact that a petition was filed for recall of the order dated 21.7.2006 only a few days after the order closing the evidence of the plaintiff was passed, shows that there was no attempt to delay the disposal of the suit on the part of the plaintiff. It is also apparent that bona fide difficulty of the plaintiff, as made out in his petition, was not considered by the court below. In this case, notices were issued to the opposite parties which have been validly served upon them but they have not chosen to appear and contest the matter. In the circumstances, this civil revision application is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.8.2006 is set aside. The petition dated 1.8.2006 filed by the plaintiff for recall of the order dated 21.7.2006 is allowed and the order dated 21.7.2006 is also set aside. The learned court below is directed to proceed with the suit from the stage of the evidence of the plaintiff. The learned court 4 below shall fix a firm date for examination of the plaintiff and shall proceed with the suit expeditiously and decide the same as soon as possible. B.T. (J. N. Singh, J.)