IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.966 of 2009 Jagdish Dubey, son of late Ambika Dubey, resident of village Khandhara Pandeypur, P.S. Simri , District Buxar, at present village Balihar, P.S. Simari, District Buxar. …Plaintiff no.1-Petitioner versus 1. Ramakant Dubey, son of late Ram Bachan Dubey 2. Sushila Devi, wife of late Ram Bachan Dubey 3. Parbatia 4. Duniaupari, both daughters of late Ram Bachan Dubey 5. Sheo Bachan Dubey, son of late Sheo Prasad Dubey 6. Ram Shushila Dubney, son of late Sheo Prasad Dubey All resident of village Khandhara Pandeypur, P.S. Simri , District Buxar. 7. Radhey Shya, son of Shyam Narayan Singh, resident of village Balihar, P.S. Simari, District Buxar. …Defendants-Opposite Parties. 8. Janardan Dubey, son of late Jawahir Dubey, resident of village Khandhara Pandeypur, P.S. Simri , District Buxar 9. Kanti Devi, daughter of late Jawahir Dubey and wife of Hirdya Tiwari, resident of village Koran Sarai, P.S. Koransarai, District Buxar. 10. Dalma Devi @ Lalita Devi, daughter of late Jawahir Dubey and wife of Lakshman Dubey, resident of village Mithila, P.S. Dumraon, District Buxar. 11. Lakshmina Devi, daughter of late Jawahir Dubey and wife of Jamuna Ojha, resident of village Mungari, P.O. Ataw P.S. Dumraon, District Buxar. 12. Bishwanath Dubey, son of late Harkhu Dubey, resident of village Khandhara Pandeypur, P.S. Simri , District Buxar ..Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties. …….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Raghu Bansh Singh, Sr. Advocate& Mr. Satyapal Singh, Advocate. For the Opp. Parties : None. ----------- 03/ 20.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by plaintiff no.1- petitioner for setting aside order dated 27.05.2009, by which learned Subordinate Judge-IV, Buxar rejected his application dated 12.12.2008 for recall of order dated 28.11.2008, by which his evidence was closed in Title Suit No. 90 of 1971. 2 3. The aforesaid title suit was filed by the petitioner along with opposite parties no. 8 to 12 for declaration that the compromise decree passed in Second Appeal No. 775 of 1965 dated 29.12.1965 was illegal, null, void and fraudulent and it had no effect on the right of the plaintiffs. The said suit was contested by the defendants, whereafter, issues were also framed and hearing started much earlier. 4. It further transpires that the evidence of the plaintiffs started much earlier and finally on 28.11.2008 it was closed. Only thereafter, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application on 12.12.2008 in the court below for recall of the said order dated 28.11.2008. The said application has been rejected by the learned court below by the impugned order, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is about 90 years old and he is ready for his examination on commission as he is unable to go to court due to his old age. This plea cannot be entertained at this stage as the suit is of 1971 and was filed when the petitioner was only 52 years old according to his own claim and hence had he given his evidence at the appropriate time his evidence would have been closed much before he reached the age of 60 years. So far question of his examination on commission is concerned, such step ought to have been taken much earlier before his evidence was closed. Furthermore, it transpires that the said order dated 28.11.2008, by which his evidence was closed, was 3 never challenged by the petitioner in the higher court and only an application for recall/review of the said order was filed by him. Furthermore, no valid ground for recall/review of the said order is made out and hence the learned court below was quite justified in rejecting the said application of the petitioner. 6. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and, accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed with a direction to the learned court below to expedite the disposal of the title suit in view of the earlier order passed by this Court. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )