IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.563 of 2008 1.Rakesh Kumar Singh, Son of Late Radha Krishna Prasad Singh. 2.Ram Chandra Prasad Singh, Son of Late Ramdhari Prasad. 3.Mostt. Yasoda Kunwer Widow of Late Radha Krishna Prasad Singh. All R/o Village- Barai Pati Pargana Pachlakh, Post Office- Chhap Mathiya, Police Station-Miraganj, District- Gopalganj. 4.Vipin Kumar Singh, Son of Late Dhrub Prasad Singh @ Dhruv Deo Singh. 5.Mritunjay Kumar Singh, Son of Late Dhrub Prasad Singh @ Dhruv Deo Singh. Both residents of village- Barai Patti Pargana Pachlakh, Post Office-Chhap Mathiya ,Police Station-Miraganj, District-Gopalganj Defendants-Opposite Party Nos.3,2,4,10 and 11).--Petitioners. Versus 1.Om Prakash Pd.@Om Prakash. 2.Jai Prakash Prasad. Both Sons of Late Ram Nagina Prasad. 3.Sushila Devi, Wife of Rajendra Prasad. All Residents of Village- Barai Patti, Post Office-Chhap Mathiya, Police Station-Miraganj, District-Gopalganj. ------------------(Plaintiffs-Applicant)—Opposite Ist Party. 4.Prithvi Nath Singh, Son of Late Shiv Pujan Singh and (Mother)Rajmato Devi, R/o Village-Ahirauli, Post Office- Noniya Patti, P.S.-Siswa, District-Gopalganj. 2 5.Gulabo Devi, Wife of Kapildeo Singh and daughter of Ram Bachan Singh, R/o Village- Bishunpura, P.O.-Jagapur Kothi, P.S.-Goria Kothi, District-Siwan. 6.Surendra Singh. 7.Harendra Singh. 8.Amod Kumar Singh. All sons of Jogeshwar Singh and mother Lalmati Devi R/o Village- Baisakhi, PO.-Hardia, P.S.-Pachrukhkhi, District- Siwan. 9.Navin Kumar Singh, Son of Ram Chandra Prasad Singh, R/o Village- Barai Patti, Pargana Pachlakh, P.O.- Chhap Mathiya, P.S.-Miraganj, District-Gopalganj. --------------- (Defendants-Opposite Party Nos.5,6 to 9 and 12) ----------------------Opposite 2nd Party—Opposite Parties. ----------- 3. 10.08.2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 09.01.2008 passed by Sub Judge III, Siwan in Misc. Case NO.09/02 by which the Title Partition Suit No. 253/1986 has been restored to its original file. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the suit had been filed in the year 1987 and due to laches on the part of the plaintiffs the matter had lingered so far and ultimately the suit was dismissed for default on 01.03.2000. The learned counsel has submitted that the 3 plaintiff has adopted a delaying tactics only to harass the petitioner and there was no sufficient cause for restoring the suit. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, it appears that the impugned order has been passed by the learned court below after hearing both the plaintiffs and the defendants, and after considering the materials and evidence placed on record. The finding has been reached that there existed sufficient cause for non- appearance of the plaintiffs on previous occasion. There is no scope for reconsidering the evidence in this regard in civil revision application. There is no error of jurisdiction or illegality in the finding recorded by the learned court below regarding the existence of sufficient cause for restoration of this suit. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this revision application, which is accordingly dismissed. However, since the hearing and disposal of the suit which has been filed in the year, 1986, has been much delayed, the court below is directed to expedite the hearing of the suit without granting unnecessary adjournments to the parties. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)