IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.502 of 2007 Triveni Kumar Singh, son of Babu Ramutar Singh resident of village Dhamsaini at present Saharsa Pargana, Uttarkhand, P.S. and District Saharsa. …….Plaintiff-Petitioner versus 1. Renu Devi wife of Rambensh Jha 2. Most. Tara Devi wife of late Lekhnath Thakur Both resident of village +P.O. and P.S. and Anchal Mahishi, District Saharsa. 3. Uma Devi wife of Kailash Jha, resident of village and P.O. Pachgachiya, P.S. Bihra, District Saharsa. 4. Smt. Lila Devi, wife of Dewanand Jha, resident of village and P.O. Rampatti, P.S. and Anchal Sidheshwar, District Madhepura. 5. Smt. Gauri Devi, wife of Rajesh Jha, resident of village and P.O. Nath Nagar Bhagalpur, District Bhagalpur. 6. Smt. Kumud Devi, wife of Dhirendra Jha, resident of village and P.O. Belhi Bhaya and P.S. Pipra, District Supaul. 7. Narnath Thakur 8. Sharminath Thakur 9. Mritunjan Thakur Sons of late Lakhnath Thakur 10. Pankaj Kumar Thakur 11. Rajnish Kumar Thakur Both sons of Narnath Thakur 12. Mukesh Kumar Thakur 13. Rajiv Kumar Thakur Both sons of Shashinath Thakur 14. Anand Mohan Thakur 15. Sohan Thakur 16. Ugra Mohan Thakur 17. Krishna Mohan Thakur All sons of Praful Mohan Thakur 18. Arun Mohan Thakur, son of Praful Mohan Thakur 19. Shankar Thakur 20. Bablu Thakur Both sons of Anand Mohan Thakur 21. Munna Thakur, son of Sohan Thakur All residents of village Muradpur, Pragana Kawkhand, P.S. and Anchal Nauhatta, District Saharsa. 22. Smt. Anapurna Devi wife of Praful Mohan Thakur 23. Lambodar Thakur 24. Basant Thakur Both sons of Praful Mohan Thakur 25. Munni Devi 26. Chunni Devi Both daughters of Praful Mohan Thakur All residents of village Muradpur Pargana Kawkhand, P.S. and and Anchal Nawahatta, District Saharsa. …Defendants-Opposite Parties. 2 02/ 01.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the sole plaintiff-petitioner challenging order dated 13.01.2007, by which the learned Subordinate Judge III, Saharsa, rejected his petition for recall of order dated 16.12.2006, by which evidence of the plaintiff was closed in Title Suit No. 26 of 1989. 3. The said suit was filed by the sole plaintiff- petitioner for partition of his moiety share in the suit property and also for declaration that the compromise decree in Title Suit No. 28 of 1983 was illegal, unlawful and not binding on the plaintiff as well as for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said suit was filed in the year 1989 and was delayed on one pretext or the other and finally issues were framed on 08.09.2005, whereafter 23.09.2005 was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff but on the said date and also on the subsequent dates i.e. 28.09.2005 and 06.10.2005 no witness was produced and only a formal witness was examined on 20.10.2005 and, thereafter, on 28.10.2005, 19.11.2005, 02.12.2005, 24.12.2005 and 02.01.2006 he failed to produce any witness nor he himself appeared in the court and, accordingly, his evidence was closed by the learned court below on 02.01.2006. 5. However, subsequently an application was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for recall of the said order dated 02.01.2006 and the said application was allowed by the learned court below on 3 20.05.2006 on the condition that cost of Rs.250.00 must be deposited. But from the impugned order of the learned court below it appears that neither the said amount of cost was deposited, nor any witness, except a formal witness, was examined and subsequently the case was fixed for the plaintiff’s evidence on 10.10.2006, 31.10.2006, 07.11.2006 and 16.12.2006, but no witness turned up nor even the plaintiff appeared and his evidence was closed by the learned court below on 16.12.2006. 6. It was only thereafter that a second application was filed on 28.12.2006 for recall of order dated 16.12.2006 and for allowing him to produce his witnesses. This application has been rejected by the learned court below vide order dated 13.01.2007, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 7. From the facts and circumstances of the case and the averments of the parties as well as the materials on record including the impugned order, it is quite apparent that the suit is already 20 years old and is lingering due to negligence and dilatory attitude of the plaintiff as due to his laches, his evidence was closed on 02.01.2006, but that order was recalled on sympathetic consideration vide order dated 20.05.2006 on the condition of payment of cost, which was not complied. Even thereafter on several continuous dates, the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence and hence the learned court below had no option but to close his evidence on 16.12.2006. In the said circumstances, there was no occasion at all for the learned court below to recall its order dated 4 16.12.2006. 8. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and, accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )