IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.541 of 2009 ---- 1. Bhola Mishra son of late Rajeshwar Mishra, resident of Mohalla Mirzapur, P.S.Town, P.O. Lalbagh and District Darbhanga. 2. Govind Mishra son of Late Rajeshwar Mishra. 3. Kanhaiya Mishra son of Gobind Mishra 4. Sohan Kumar Mishra @ Sohan Mishra 5. Madan Kumar Mishra Both sons of Gobind Mishra. All residents of Mohalla Mirzapur, P.S. town, P.O. Lalbagh, District Darbhanga. - Defendants-Petitioners. Versus 1. Chandra Shekhar Chaudhary son of Jagat Narayan Choudhary. 2. Arun Kumar Choudhary 3. Manoj Kumar Choudhary 4. Bhabesh Kumar Choudhary All sons of Chandra Shekhar Choudhary, residents of village Mirzapur, P.S. Town and P.O. Lalbagh, District- Darbhanga. -Plaintiffs-Opposite parties. 5. Madan Kumar Mishra 6. Ram Kumar Mishra, Both sons of Bhola Mishra. Both residents of Mohalla Mirzapur, P.S. Town, P.S. Lalbagh, District Darbhanga. - Defendants-Opposite parties. ------ For the petitioners : M/s Baidyanath Thakur & Shankar Kumar Thakur, Advocates. For the plaintiffs-O.Ps. : Mr. Birendra Prasad Verma, Senior Advocate Dr. Mrityunjaya Kumar Gautam, Mr. Yogendra Kumar Mr. R.N.Roy, Advocates. ----- 05. 09.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs-opposite parties. This civil revision has been filed by some of the defendants challenging order dated 03.01.2009 by which the learned Munsif I, Darbhanga rejected their application for recall of order dated 08.07.2008 by which their evidence was closed and Title Suit No.56 of 2001 was posted for argument. - 2 - The aforesaid suit was filed by opposite parties no.1 to 4 for declaration of their title and confirmation of their possession over the suit land and also for other ancillary reliefs. The defendants appeared in the suit and contested the same by filing their respective written statements, issues were framed and evidence started and the plaintiffs examined several witnesses and on 03.05.2008 they filed an application for adjournment of the suit for production of further witnesses as plaintiff no.1 was ill, but the said petition was rejected and the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed. It further transpires that on 03.05.2008, the defendants were directed to produce their witnesses, but they could not produce even a single witness due to which their evidence was also closed on 08.07.2008. When the defendants came to know about the said order he filed a petition for recall of the said order, but the said petition has been rejected by the learned trial court vide the impugned order. From the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the respective claims of the parties, including the joint prayer of both the parties, it appears that the suit is a title suit and is of the year 2001 and had made substantial progress and hence both the parties deserve one opportunity to complete their evidence, otherwise there may be failure of justice. In the said circumstances, the impugned order of the learned court below is hereby set aside and this civil revision is allowed with a direction to the learned Munsif I, Darbhanga to give - 3 - an opportunity of two weeks from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order to the plaintiffs to produce their witnesses both formal and on merits and thereafter to give four weeks time to the defendants to lead their evidence on merits or formal. It may be noted that no further time should be given to the parties and immediately after closure of the said evidence, the defendants and thereafter the plaintiffs be asked to place their arguments and in any case complete and close their arguments within two months thereafter. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)