IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.296 of 2007 Bidyanand Saw son of late Sitaram Sao, resident of Bakhtiarpur, Sidhighat Bazar, Post Office & Police Station Bakhtiarpur, District Patna………Defendant-Petitioner Versus 1. Dr. Devendra Narayan Prasad 2. Dr. Laxshmi Narayan Prasad, Both sons of Sri Harinandan Prasad, resident of village Barora, P.S. Noorsarai, District Nalanda, presently residing at Bakhtiarpur Bazar, Sidhi Ghat, P.O. & P.S. Bakhtiarpur, District Patna. …..Plaintifs-Opposite Parties 3. Pramod Sao, son of Vidyanand Sao, resident of Bakhtiarpur, Sidhighat Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Bakhtiarpur, District Patna……………… ….Defendant-Opposite Party. For the petitioner : M/s Rajiv Nayan Singh and Dwijendra Misra, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 05/ 27.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant-petitioner challenging order dated 10.10.2006 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-II, Barh (Patna) rejected his petition dated 11.09.2006 for recall of earlier order dated 28.09.2000 passed in Title Suit No.72 of 1997. The aforesaid title suit was filed by opposite party nos.1 and 2 against the petitioner and opposite party no.3 for specific performance of contract vide agreement for sale dated 23.06.1996 with respect to the suit property. It transpires that in the year 1998 the learned trial court directed the defendant-petitioner to give samples of his handwriting and thumb impression so that the disputed document may be 2 verified. It further transpires that the said order was not complied by the petitioner and hence on 28.09.2000 the learned court below found that the said samples were not given by the defendant- petitioner deliberately on some or other pretext and hence adverse inference has to be drawn against the petitioner in the said matter. Thereafter, the date of hearing of the title suit was fixed on 08.11.2000. On 08.11.2000 the petitioner filed a petition for recall of the abovementioned order dated 28.09.2000. It transpires from the impugned order of the learned court below that the said recall petition was not pressed by him for about six years. However, on 11.09.2006 a fresh petition was filed by the defendant-petitioner for recall of the earlier order dated 28.09.2000, which was rejected by the learned court below vide impugned order dated 10.10.2006. From the impugned order it is quite apparent that the learned court below has considered the entire matter in detail and has found that the defendant-petitioner deliberately delayed the matter on one pretext or the other and due to his laches and dilatory attitude he did not comply the order of the learned court below of the year 1998 nor he pressed his petition dated 08.11.2000 for so many long years and only after more than six years of the said order dated 28.09.2000 he filed a petition dated 08.11.2000 for recall of the said order. It is also apparent that neither the order of 1998 nor order dated 28.09.2000 had ever been challenged by the defendant-petitioner before any higher court and thus he had filed the petition dated 11.09.2006 3 merely for the purpose of further delaying the disposal of the suit. It is also found that order dated 28.09.2000 was quite legal and proper as it was based upon the factual matrix of the suit and there was no illegality therein. Thus the petition of the petitioner dated 11.09.2006 was absolutely frivolous and was rightly rejected by the learned court below. In this aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )