ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners who were plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 65 of 1983 aggrieved by orders dated 24.8.1990 and 6.4.2000 by which their Miscellaneous Case No. 36 of 1985 and Miscellaneous Appeal No.107 of 1990 for restoration of the aforesaid title suit were rejected. The aforesaid title suit no. 65 of 1988 was filed by the petitioners against the exparte judgment and decree dated 5.10.1982, passed in Title suit no. 51 of 1981. The said Title Suit No. 65 of 1983 was dismissed for default on 21.11.1985 as after filing of appearance no one appeared on behalf of either of the parties. The plaintiffs filed Miscellaneous Case No. 36 of 1985 for restoration of the title suit but it was also dismissed for default on 4.10.1986 but later in Miscellaneous Case No. 39 of 1986 the earlier misc. case was restored. However, on 24.8.1990 the learned Subordinate judge-II, Bhojpur dismissed Misc. Case No. 36 of 1985 and against that order petitioners filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 107 of 1990 which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Bhojpur at Ara by the impugned order dated 6.4.2000. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is apparent from the records of the title suit that petitioner no.2 was taking proper care of the suit but due to absence on one date i.e. 21.11.1985 the suit was dismissed although on the previous five occasions he was present in court. He further submits that earlier court was transferred due to which there was some confusion and further he had fallen ill that date and hence he could not appear. He further contended that he had through out taken proper care of the suit which was dismissed for default for none of his intentional fault, hence the court below should have taken the lenient view and should have restored the suit for deciding it on merit in accordance with law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties opposes the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners were habitual defaulters as earlier Title Suit No.41 of 1981 was decided exparte against them and even on several occasions they failed to appear in said Title Suit No. 65 of 1983. He further contended that during the pendency of the Misc. He further contended that during the pendency of the Misc. Case also they defaulted on several occasions and remained slumbering for six months after the dismissal of their suit due to which the misc. case was barred by limitation also. He further contended that the petitioners could not show any sufficient cause nor produced reliable evidence to prove that they were genuinely prevented from appearing in court on the relevant dates and from filing petition within the prescribed time. Learned, counsel for opposite parties further contended that the petitioners did not approach the court with clean hands as they could not show the reason for their long slumbering and even the witnesses adduced on their behalf did not prove their cases. It was stated on their behalf that the misc. case was filed only on behalf of one of the plaintiffs and in that case several parties to the suit or the heirs of the parties to the suit were not impleaded and hence in their absence, the misc. case was not legally maintainable. He also contended that on the relevant date Haziri was filed in the suit but even then he did not appear and it clearly shows that he was very well present in court on that date which was also apparent from the evidence of one of the plaintiffs Bishwanath Sah who deposed as AW1. Hence, according to learned counsel for opposite parties neither there is any jurisdictional error nor there is any occasion for the court to entertain any such matter. He further relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court including decisions in the case of The Managing Director (MIG), Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Balanagar, Hyderabad and another Vs. Ajit Prasad Tiwary, reported in AIR 1973 SC 76 and in the case of The Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Suresh Chandra Jaipuria, and Anr. reported in AIR 1976 SC 2621 which clearly held that the concurrent findings of fact should not be interfered with a Civil Revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and even with respect to wrong findings of fact this Court had no jurisdiction. Hence, he submits that the civil revision application is fit to be dismissed. 5. reported in AIR 1976 SC 2621 which clearly held that the concurrent findings of fact should not be interfered with a Civil Revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and even with respect to wrong findings of fact this Court had no jurisdiction. Hence, he submits that the civil revision application is fit to be dismissed. 5. After considering the averments of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, it is apparent that both the courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiffs claim that Kashi Nath Sah was HI on the relevant date was not proved by any valid material, as A.W.1, namely his brother, has deposed in cross examination that Haziri was filed as Kashi Nath Sah was present but at another place in the same deposition he has submitted that he was ill at his village. It was also found that A.W.2 (advocate's clerk) stated that Haziri filed on behalf of Kashi Nath Sah was not in his hand writing. Hence both the courts below held that the plaintiffs have not come with clean hands as Bishwanath Sah was admittedly at Imphal at the relevant time and Kashi Nath Sah who was the main person to prove his aliment did not depose. It was also held concurrently that the plaintiffs left Pairvi of the case and story of the ailment was false. It was also held by the courts below that there were two plaintiffs out of whom only one had filed Misc. case, and even other parties or heirs of the parties had not been impleaded in the misc. case and, therefore, misc, case was not maintainable. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, when there are concurrent findings of fact by both the courts, and there is neither any jurisdictional error nor any error of record, this Court cannot legally reappraise the facts and decide the matter in a petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further more, the case law cited on behalf of the petitioners, namely, the case of Ram Chandra Sao and others Vs. Further more, the case law cited on behalf of the petitioners, namely, the case of Ram Chandra Sao and others Vs. Bal Kishun Sao and others, reported in 2003(4) PLJR 690 cannot be made applicable to this case because the said order was passed in a miscellaneous appeal and not in a civil revision under section 115 of the C.P.C., as under Order 43 Rule 1 the jurisdiction of this Court is much wider than under section 115 C.P.C. Thus the civil revision application cannot be legally entertained and is accordingly dismissed. 7. However, Title Suit No. 65 of 1983 being dismissed for default on 21.11.1985 when neither parties had appeared, the provision of Order 9 Rules 3 and 4 would be attracted and in the aforesaid circumstances, the plaintiffs may (subject to the law of limitation) bring a fresh suit in accordance with law if so advised.