IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.90 of 2009 Ranjit Ram & Anr Versus Harelal Yadav & Ors ---------------------------------- 4 15-9-2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. This revision application has been filed against the appellate order dated 25-8-2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, F.T.C. V, Bettiah, whereby he has affirmed the order passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 4 of 2002 by Subordinate Judge II, Bagaha rejecting the petition filed by the plaintiff-petitioners under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. The facts are not much in dispsute. The plaintiffs have filed the Miscellaneous Case for restoration of the suit on the ground that earlier the petition under section 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 had been filed and their Karpardaz gave them an impression that the suit had abated and as such they left making Pairvi in the suit. Later on, when they came to know about the real fact, they filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. for restoration of the suit. The trial court had considered the evidence 2 adduced by the plaintiffs as well as the ordersheet of the title suit. From the ordersheet of the title suit it has come to the conclusion that the petition under section 4(c) of the Consolidation Act , as above mentioned, had been rejected long ago and thereafter the plaintiffs attended on the dates in the suit and made their Pairvi and as such the trial court had come to the finding that the ground propounded by the plaintiffs for establishing sufficient cause was not believable and consequently dismissed the Miscellaneous Case, The appellate court examined the evidence, submissions as well as the pleadings of the parties and affirmed the finding of the trial court holding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish sufficient cause for restoration of their suit. The finding of facts, as concurrently recorded by both the courts below, has not been shown to be perverse and as such in the revisional jurisdiction it is not possible to interfere with those findings.There is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. This revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. roy ( V. Nath, J.) 3