IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.23 of 2008 ---- Jagdish Narain Jha S/O Late Shobha Kant Jha, Resident of Village Bheet Bhagwanpur, P.S. Madhepur, presently resides at Village Behat, P.S. Shivir, Jhanjharpur, District- Madhubani. -- Plaintiff-Petitioner. Versus 1. Sri Surendra Thakur S/O Gunilal Thakur 2. Kabir Kant Thakur S/O Gunilal Thakur Both are resident of Village Mahinathpur Kaithiniya P.S. Lakhnaur, District-Madhubani. -- Defendants 1st Party-Opposite Party 1st Set. 3. Binod Kumar Jha S/O Rameshwar Jha Resident of Village Navtal, P.S. Shivir Jhanjharpur, District- Madhubani. -- Defendant 2nd Party- Opposite Party 2nd Set. ----- For the petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ---- 05. 27.10.2009 I.A.No.44 of 2008 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for condoning the delay in the filing of the civil revision. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the statements made in the interlocutory application, it appears that genuine reasons have been shown which prevented the petitioner from filing the civil revision earlier. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay in the filing of the civil revision is condoned. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner challenging order dated 13.02.2007 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-II, Jhanjharpur rejected his application for recall of order dated 01.12.2006 by which the evidence of the plaintiff in - 2 - Title Suit No.09 of 1997 was closed. 4. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction with respect to the suit land and also for declaration that the agreement executed by defendant 1st Party in favour of defendant 2nd party was illegal, null and void and for other ancillary reliefs. 5. It transpires that issues were framed in the suit, whereafter the suit was fixed for plaintiff’s evidence, but the plaintiff did not care and despite repeated adjournments and reminders regarding adjournments, neither the plaintiff appeared, nor produced any witness, either oral or documentary, and as such the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 06.09.2005. 6. It further transpires that thereafter the plaintiff filed an application for recall of the said order dated 06.09.2005 and the learned court below taking a lenient view of the matter and in the interest of justice allowed the said prayer and recalled order dated 06.09.2005 and permitted him to lead his evidence. In spite of several adjournments, the suit continued till 01.12.2006, but neither the plaintiff appeared, nor examined any witness on his behalf and hence the learned court below again closed the evidence of the plaintiff vide order dated 01.12.2006. 7. Again an application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff for recall of order dated 01.12.2006 taking the plea that time petition was filed on that date on his behalf. The said application has been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated - 3 - 13.02.2007 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 8. Although, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner vehemently argues the case and challenges the impugned order, but the fact remains that any party to the suit cannot be allowed to make the mockery of the court’s order and proceedings and if he fails to comply any order the statutory procedures had to be followed which were duly followed by the learned court below, specially in view of the fact that the suit had remained pending for over a decade due to the said reasons. 9. In the 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. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)