IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.380 of 2007 1. UMA SHANKAR PRASAD SINHA @ UMA Shankar Pd. Singh Son of lat Jagarnath Prasad Singh, resi8dent of village and post Deodha, P.S. Hasanpur, Dist. Samastipur. 2.Sabita Mishra, wifeof Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Resident of village Mahua, P.S. Baheri, Dist. Darbhanga …. Plaintiffs petitioners. Versus 1.GANESH KAMTI @ JHOTAHU MAHTO son of Babue Lal Mahto, 2.Smt. Devaki Devi wife of Kapleshwar Mahto, 3.Ram Awatar Thakur, son of Ram Gulam Thakur, 4.Mostt. Tara Devi wife of late RamRatan Sahani, all resident of village Deodhar, P.O. Deodha, P.S. Hasanpur, Dist. Samastipur …...Defendants Oppostie Parties. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Bhupendra Nr. Choube, Advocate Mr.Shailendra Kumar, Advocate. ----------- 3 10.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This Civil Revision has been filed by plaintiffs-petitioners challenging order dated 04.01.2007 by which the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rosera rejected their petition dated 03.01.2007 for recalling the earlier order dated 31.8.2006 by which the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed in Title Suit No. 205 of 1986. 3. The aforesaid Title Suit was filed by plaintiffs-petitioners for declaration that the exparte decree dated 28.3.1985, passed by the learned Munsif, Samastipur, in Title Suit No. 102 of 1978 was fraudulent, collusive, not binding on the plaintiffs and for other ancillary reliefs. It is quite apparent that the defendants appeared in the suit and contested the same whereafter issues were framed on 02.12.2002 and since then it remained pending and ultimately it was placed for production of evidence by the plaintiffs on 30.01.2006. 4. It transpires that on the date fixed thereafter the plaintiffs filed their hazri but they did not do any pairvi for producing their witnesses - 2 - Even after twenty years of the filing of the suit. Hence after several adjournments for the purposes the Court was left with no option but to close the evidence of the plaintiffs on 31.08.2006. Thereafter the evidence of the defendant was continuing when the impugned order was passed. 5. It further transpires that after more than four months of the said order dated 31.08.2006 the plaintiffs filed a petition on 03.01.2007 for recall of order dated 31.08.2006 on the ground that the plaintiff petitioner no.1 was suffering from serious ailment. This petition has been reje3cted by the learned court below vide its order dated 04.01.2007 which is under challenge in the instant Civil Revision. 6 From the averments as well as from the materials on record it is quite apparent that the suit is of the year 1986 and even after twenty years the plaintiffs were unable to produce any evidence to support their pleadings and hence there was no occasion for the learned court below to give any further adjournment merely to unnecessarily delay such a long proceeding of the suit. Further more so far the plea of ailment of plaintiff –petitioner no.1 is concerned, it is quite apparent that there was another plaintiff namely plaintiff no.2 who was sister of plaintiff no.1 and could have taken steps in this regard through their lawyer but from the materials on record it does not appear that she had taken any step. 7. The defendant in the court below had claimed that the certificates, prescription and medical receipts produced by the plaintiffs were all forged and fabricated. From the perusal of the said papers which are annexed to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner on 10.08.2009 it is quite apparent that some of them are of the year 1978, 1994 and 1995 and - 3 - it does not show any such serious ailment which could permanently deprive petitioner no.1 from taking any step in the suit. Further more the remaining papers are of 15.09.2006, 16.09.2006 and 13.12.2006 which are of the period subsequent to the closure of the evidence on 31.08.2006. No any such document has been produce to show that from 2.12.2002 to 31.08.2006 petitioner no.1 was in such a condition that he was not able to take any step in the suit for those four long years. 8. In the said circumstances, the entire plea of the petitioners with regard to ailment of petitioner no.1 appears to be absolutely frivolous and baseless which were rightly not relied upon by the learned court below. 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. (S.N. Hussain) M.Rahman