IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8040 of 2010 1. NEELAM DEVI, W/O DURGA PRASAD 2. DURGA PRASAD S/O LATE RAM LAKHAN SAH BOTH R/OMUHALLA MUNNACHAK, PS. PATRAKARNAGAR, KANKARBAGH, DISTT-PATNA…….. PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1. ASHA DEVI W/O BABAN SUKALA, R/O MUHALLA MUNNACHAK, P.S. PATRAKARNAGAR, KANKARBAGH, DISTT-PATNA 2. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH COLLECTOR PATNA ….RESPONDENTS. For the petitioners :Mr. B.N.P. Singh, Advocate. For the respondents :M/s Nallin Kumar and Brajnandan Singh, Advocates. ----------- 03/ 21.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 30.03.2010 by which Subordinate Judge- IV, Patna rejected petitioners’ application dated 25.01.2010/04.02.2010 for recall of order dated 18.09.2007 by which petitioners’ evidence was closed in Title Suit No.215 of 1995. 3. From the arguments as well as the materials on record it is quite apparent that the aforesaid title suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent no.1 for specific performance of contract and the said case was lingered for about ten years when the issues were framed on 15.10.2005. On 29.08.2006 the plaintiff filed an application in the court below for directing the defendants, who are petitioners in the writ petition, to provide their specimen signature for comparing it with the signature in the concerned 2 document. The said application was allowed by the trial court on 03.04.2007, but neither the said order was challenged nor it was complied, although several years passed. Furthermore, the evidence of the plaintiffs started and was concluded on 12.09.2007 and the defendants were directed to produce their evidence but when they failed to do that, their evidence was closed on 18.09.2007. Now, after more than two years the defendants- petitioners filed application dated 25.01.2010/04.02.2010 in the trial court for recall of order dated 18.09.2007 but the said application has been rejected by the trial court by the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after closing of plaintiff’s evidence on 12.09.2007 only one opportunity was given to the defendants and when it was not availed, the evidence of defendants was closed on 18.09.2007. He further argued that subsequently the evidence of plaintiff restarted on 18.07.2008 on her request and was closed on 25.07.2008. Thus it is claimed that thereafter the defendants-petitioners should have been given a chance for producing their evidence. It is also stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that before closing of their evidence on 18.09.2007 the defendants-petitioners had filed Transfer Case No.156 of 2007 which was dismissed by the District Judge, Patna vide order dated 31.08.2007 against which the petitioners filed C.R. No.1861 of 2007 which remained pending, till withdrawal petition was filed on 25.01.2010 on the ground that 3 Presiding Officer of the trial court had changed and accordingly the civil revision was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.02.2010. He further submits that only thereafter he could have filed the petition for recall of order dated 18.09.2007. 5. So far the aforesaid grounds taken by the petitioners are concerned, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 12.09.2007 and after closure of the evidence of defendants, the plaintiff filed an application for producing a witness which was allowed by the trial court and the evidence was taken. But after the second closure of plaintiff’s evidence on 25.07.2008, the defendants did not file any application for allowing them a chance to produce their evidence, although if they wanted they could have filed it immediately. Furthermore, the defendants-petitioners throughout violated the specific directions of the trial court for producing their specimen signature. 6. It is also apparent that the transfer case was dismissed on merits by the District Judge, Patna on 31.08.2007 and thereafter the petitioners should have complied the order of the trial court and could have produced evidence as per the direction of the court below dated 12.09.2007. Furthermore, neither any interim order was passed in the civil revision nor any occasion had been shown as to why the petitioners waited for such a long period. It is also strange to note that the application for recall of order dated 18.09.2007 was filed in the trial court on 25.01.2010 much before their civil revision was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.02.2010. 4 This shows that the petitioners could have filed their application for recall of order dated 18.09.2007 earlier also, but they miserably failed. 7. In the said circumstances, the trial court very rightly came to the conclusion that the defendants-petitioners were using dilatory tactics continuously for the last three years due to which the suit had unnecessarily dragged for fifteen years. 8. Considering the relevant facts, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the court below nor does it find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )