IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.135 of 2008 1. Chandrama Pandey 2. Jitendra Pandey Both sons of late Subhash Pandey Resident of village & Post Bhada, P.S. Bagen Gola, District Buxar………..Defendant nos.14 and 15-Petitioners. Versus 1. Bhola Pandey son of Late Jitan Pandey 2. Barmeshwar Pandey son o Late Bishun Pandey 3. Lal Mohar Pandey son of Late Lal Jee Pandey 4. Raghunath Pandey son of Late Chhupa Pandey All are resident of village & Post Bhada, P.S. Bagen Gola, District Buxar.……Plaintiffs-Opposite party 1st set. 5. Ram Pravesh Thakur 6. Ram Naresh Thakur 7. Dip Narayan Thakur All sons of late Sahdeo Thakur 8. Dhananjay Thakur son of late Jagdish Thakur All are resident of village & Post Bhadshari, P.S. Bagen Gola, District Buxar. …..Defendant nos.1 to 4-Opposite party 2nd set. 9. Mukteshwar Pandey 10. Lakchhman Pandey 11. Bharath Pandey 12. Gupteshwar Pandey 13. Bhuneshwar Pandey 14. Sheo Jee Pandey 15. Sudharshan Pandey 16. Ram Jee Pandey 17. Sheo Parshan Pandey All sons of late Dudh Nath Pandey, all resident of village & Post Bhada, P.S. Bagen Gola, District Buxar. …..Defendant nos.5 to 13-Opposite party 3rd set. 18. Satya Narayan Pandey son of late Suruj Pandey 19. Bihari Pandey 20. Kunja Pandey 21. Bir Bahadur Pandey All sons of late Khedan Pandey All are resident of village & Post Bhada, P.S Bagen Gola, District Buxar. …...Defendant nos.16 to 19-Opposite party 4th set. 22. Lal Bachan Pandey 23. Suresh Pandey 24. Tej Narayan Pandey All sons of late Lal Jee Pandey, all are resident of village & Post Bhada, P.S. Bagen Gola, District Buxar. …..Defendant nos.20 to 22-Opposite party 5th set. 2 For the petitioners : Mr. Ram Naresh Sharma, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 02/ 12.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This civil revision has been filed by defendant nos.14 and 15-petitioners challenging order dated 17.08.2007 by which learned Munsif-I, Buxar rejected their application for recall of plaintiffs’ witnesses for cross-examination in Title Suit No.112 of 2000. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs-opposite party 1st set for declaration of their title and for other ancillary reliefs. It transpires that the pleadings were complete, whereafter issues were framed and evidence of both the parties was concluded. It further transpires that only thereafter two applications were filed by the petitioners in the trial court; one for allowing them to cross-examine the plaintiffs’ witnesses and second to allow them to produce their witnesses. The learned court below allowed their application for producing their own witnesses but rejected their prayer for permitting them to cross-examine the plaintiffs’ witnesses. From the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the materials on record, it is quite apparent that even after sufficient time the said defendants-petitioners did not cross- examine the plaintiffs’ witnesses and even thereafter when the time was fixed for examination of defendants’ witnesses no such step was taken. It also transpires that no plausible reason for such 3 delay had been shown and hence there was no occasion for the learned court below to allow the said prayer of the defendant nos.14 and 15 -petitioners. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )