IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2250 of 2006 MAHENDRA JHA, SON OF LATE FOUDAR JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-LAKHNAUR, P.S. LAKHNAUR, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI. ……………………DEFENDANT NO.4-OPP. PARTY NO.2-PETITIONER. Versus 1. MANGNU JHA @ MANU JHA, SON OF LATE CHULHAI JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-LAKHNOUR, P.S. LAKHNAUR, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI. 2. KADAR JHA, SON OF LATE BHULA JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-LAKHNAUR, P.S. LAKHNAUR, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. …………………DEFENDANT NO.1-OPP.PARTY NO.1-OPP. PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Uday Bhanu Roy, Advocate. --------------- 3. 1.9.2009. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The defendant no.4-opposite party no.2- petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.10.2006, whereby his petition for recalling the order dated 1.4.2006 has been rejected by the court below on the ground that several opportunities were given to the opposite parties to lead evidence from 17.12.2005 to 1.4.2006 and despite granting several opportunities, the defendants-opposite parties did not examine even a single witness. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity has been given to the petitioner to lead evidence. However, the petition filed for recalling the order dated 1.4.2006 has been brought on record as Anneuxre-‘3’ and it does not appear from that petition that this stand was taken by the petitioner that he had not been given opportunity rather the petitioner had only tried to explain his omission as he could not appear before the court - 2 - on several occasions. The aforesaid explanation was not accepted by the court below. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 19.10.2006. In the result, this civil revision is dismissed. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)