IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1686 of 2006 1. SHYAM NARAYAN SINGH, SON OF LAL BABU SINGH 2. SHAILESH SINGH 3. SURESH SINGH BOTH ARE SONS OF SHYAM NARAYAN SINGH. 4. MUNNA SINGH, SON OF SURENDRA SINGH. 5. RAMESH SINGH, SON OF RADHA MOHAN SINGH ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – SAROPUR BACHRI, POLICE STATION-SANDESH IN THE DISTRICT OF BHOJPUR. ------- DEFENDANTS/PETITIONERS. Versus 1. NAND KISHORE SINGH 2. RAJENDRA SHAH BOTH ARE SONS OF MANU LAL SHAH THROUGH ATTORNEY BASHISHTHA NARAYAN SHAH, SON OF LATE BHARATH SHAH, RESIDENT OF KORRA, POLICE STATION-SANDESH IN THE DISTRICT OF BHOJPUR. -----PLAINTIFF/OPPOSITE PARTIES. 3. BINDESHWARI SINGH, SON OF RAM SUBHAG SINGH. 4. SHASHI BHUSHAN SINGH, SON OF BINDESHWARI SINGH. 5. UMESH SINGH. 6. SURESH SINGH. 7. RAMESH SINGH 8. NARENDRA SINGH ALL ARE SONS OF ARJUN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- ANKHGAON, P.S. SANDESH IN THE DISTRICT OF BHOJPUR. 9. HANDO DEVI WIFE OF RAM NARAYAN SINGH. 10. MUNNA SINGH 11. VIJAY SINGH BOTH ARE SONS OF RAM NARAYAN SINGH 12. UPRAJO DEVI WIFE OF SURENDRA SINGH. 13. ATARBASO DEVI WIFE OF RADHA MOHAN SINGH. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SAROPUR BACHARI, POLICE STATION-SANDESH IN THE DISTRICT OF BHOJPUR. ----- DEFENDANTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ------- 2. 26/2/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Defendants-petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 27.7.2006 passed by the 2nd Munsif, Arrah, in Title Suit No. 13 of 2001 whereby their petition for recall of order dated 6.9.2002 has been rejected. - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was demonstrated before the court below that for the good and valid reasons, the petitioners could not appear before the court below and file written statement and, thus, it was a fit case for recall of the order dated 6.9.2002 whereby the court below has passed order for ex-parte hearing of the suit. The trial court, in the impugned order, on consideration of the rival submissions has clearly stated that nothing has been disclosed in the petition filed by the defendants-petitioners with regard to either their knowledge of pendency of suit or when inspection of the records was done on their behalf. It has come to the conclusion that no ground at all could be made out for recall of the aforesaid order dated 6.9.2002. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out anything to demonstrate that the aforesaid finding of the court below is erroneous. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Court in its discretionary Civil Revisional jurisdiction. As a result, this Civil Revision application is dismissed. S.Ali (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)