IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.441 of 2007 The Principal ,D.B.K.N.College, Narhan, P.O.Narhan P.S. Bibhutipur Dist. Samastipur Defendant no.1-Petitioner Versus 1. Shambhu Nath Srivastava S/o Late Ram Bilash Lal resident of Village + P.O. Narhan P.S.Anchal Bibhutipur Dist. Samatipur Plaintiff- Opposite Party 2. Kailashpati Lal 3. Vishwanath Prasad Lal 4. Pasupati Nath Lal 5. Gauri Shankar Lal 6. Maheshwar Prasad Lal All sons of Ram Bilash Lal 7. Girish Kumar Shrivastava 8. Kaushal Kumar Shrivastava 9. Neelu Kumar Shrivastava All sons of late Jitendra Lal resident of Village + P.O. Narhan P.S. Bibhutipur Dist. Samatipur Defendants 2nd parties -opposite parties ----------- For the petitioner: Mr Pramod Mishra, Advocate Mr Prafull Chandra Thakur, Advocate For the Opposite party no. 2: Mr Gopal Pandey, Advocate -------------- 03 01.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for defendant no.1-petitioner and learned counsel for plaintiff -opposite party no.1. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant no.1- petitioner challenging order dated 13.02.2007 by which learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rosera (Samastipur) rejected his petition to give him an opportunity to produce oral and documentary evidence and place his argument after recalling its earlier order in Title Suit no. 86 of 1998 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiff-opposite party no.1 for a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant no.1 from interfering with Schedule II land of the plaint. The said suit was contested by the defendants. Where after issues were framed and - 2 - evidence started and finally the evidence was closed on 20.09.2006. 4. It also transpires from the impugned order itself that the arguments were also heard by the learned court below and after conclusion of the arguments the suit has been fixed for judgment. Only thereafter on 08.02.2007 the aforementioned application was filed by defendant no. 1-petitioner in the learned court below for recall of the earlier order and for giving opportunity to lead his evidence and argue the case. 5. The learned court below has rejected the said application on the ground that defendant no.1- petitioner has been throughout negligent and at this stage such an application can not be allowed. From the facts of the case as well as from the specific provision of law, it is quite apparent that the learned court below was quite justified in passing the said order as after arguments were closed and the suit was fixed for judgment, no such application can legally be entertained. 6. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any error of jurisdiction therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)