IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.611 of 2009 1. Nand Kishore Prasad Keshri @ Nand Kishore Keshri, son of late Dev Narayan Lal Keshri. 2. Shrimati Vijay Laxmi Keshri, wife of Shri Nand Kishore Prasad Keshri. Both are residents of Supaul Lohiya Nagar, Ward No.9, Municipality, P.S. Supaul, District- Supaul. ….Plaintiffs….Petitioners. Versus Ram Nath Jha, son of Tarni Jha, resident of Supaul Lohiya Nagar, Ward No.9, Police Station- Supaul, District- Supaul. ……Defendant……Opp. Party. ----------- 03- 29.11.2011 Heard Mr. Nafisuzzoha for the petitioners, and Mr. Suman Kumar Mishra for the opposite party. The plaintiffs of Title Suit No.61 of 1996 have filed this civil revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’), and are aggrieved by the order dated 30.3.2005, passed by the learned Munsif, Supaul, in the suit, whereby their application under Order 14, rule 4 of the Code, has been rejected. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The present petitioners instituted the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Both the sides had filed their draft issues, but no formal order was passed thereon. Unmindful of the position of absence of a formal order in that behalf, the parties led evidence and 2 closed it. After the suit was set down for oral arguments, the plaintiffs filed the present application under Order 14, rule 4 of the Code, stating therein that evidence has been led by the parties without framing of issues. It was, therefore, prayed that the evidence till then brought on record may be cancelled, and the trial may be made De-Novo. The application has been rejected on the ground that the parties were fully mindful of the issues involved in the case. Both sides have placed on record their respective draft issues. Absence of a formal order framing the issues has not caused prejudice to the parties. The learned trial court has in substance further held that it is a mala-fide attempt on the part of the plaintiffs to delay disposal of the suit. We entirely agree with the order. 3. The present civil revision application is barred by limitation. The impugned order was passed on 30.3.2005, and the present civil revision application was lodged in this Court on 16.4.2009, after inordinate delay of four years. It appears to be a case of gross delay, laches, and negligence. We are not inclined to condone the delay. 4. This civil revision application is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/