IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.218 of 2003 1. Ramdeo Rai, son of Gauri Rai, 2. Sona Devi, wife of Jaddu Rai, 3. Jagarnath Rai, son of Late Sukhdeo Rai, 4. Ashok Kumar Rai @ Ashok Kumar, son of Sukhdeo Rai 5. Biddeya Rai, son of Jamuna Rai, son of Khublal Rai 6. Bishnu Dayal Rai @ Bishnu Dayal Yadav son of Khublal Rai, All residents of village Semaria Tola Pahiya, P.S. & P.O.Ravilganj, District Saran …Defendants-Appellants-Appellants -versus- Ram Niwas Rai, son of Ram Prasad Rai, resident of village Tilkabad, P.S. Garkha, District Saran at present village Samaria Tola Pahiya, P.S.and P.O.Revilganj, District Saran …Plaintiff-.Respondent-Respondents. --------- For the Appellants : M/s S. K. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Malika Mazumdar, Sudhir Ranjan and Satya Prakash Behari, Advocates. For the Respondent : None. ----------- 23/ 23.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the sole respondent. 2. This second appeal arises out of Title Suit No. 46 of 1991, which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent- respondent for declaration of title and for confirmation/recovery of possession with respect to the suit land as well as for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed on contest by learned Munsif IV, Chapra vide his judgment and decree dated 29.09.1994. 3. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, defendants-appellants filed Title Appeal No. 78 of 1998, which was dismissed on contest by the Additional District Judge-I, Saran vide his judgment and decree dated 31.07.2003. Against the 2 aforesaid judgments and decree of the courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for defendants-appellants vehemently challenged the judgments and decree of the courts below, but from the facts and circumstances of this case it is quite apparent that so far the question of non-fixing of the suit for ex parte hearing is concerned, the court of appeal below had very carefully considered the same in detail and had found that when the defendants after appearing in the court and filing their written statement, stopped their pairvi, it was not necessary for the trial court to fix the case for ex parte hearing. In this connection, he relied upon a decision of this Court in case of State of Bihar vs. Raj Ballam Singh, reported in 1986 P.L.J.R.(NOC) 33. 5. It is also apparent from the judgments and decree of the courts below that after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties as well as the materials on record, they came to specific concurrent findings that the plaintiff was able to prove his title and also his entitlement for recovery of possession of the suit premises as well as other reliefs sought. 6. The court of appeal below also found that against the judgment and decree of the trial court, either the defendants- appellants could have filed an appeal or they could have filed an application under IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure or even they could have filed a separate suit for setting aside the decree on the ground of fraud or they had a fourth remedy by way of filing a 3 review and out of them the defendants-appellants chose to file a title appeal, but they filed it after several years and hence section 14 of the Limitation Act was not applicable to the aforesaid circumstances. It was also found that no cogent reason was shown by defendants-appellants for such an inordinate delay in filing of the title appeal, which was rightly held to be barred by law of limitation and the appeal to be not maintainable. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the courts below nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )