JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Mr. Harshvardhan Shivsundaram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ras Bihari Thakur, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 1. 2. It is jointly submitted by the parties that the issue involved in this Civil Revision is in controversy between the petitioners and the opposite party no. 1 only and the other opposite parties no. 2 to 18 do not have any concern with this Civil Revision as they are proforma opposite parties herein. Thus, this Civil Revision can be disposed of in their absence as well at this stage. 3. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Bhojpur at Ara and the Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division No. 2, Ara, District-Bhojpur, are the petitioners in this case. Only they have been debarred from filing written statement by the order dated 25.6.2003 and subsequently by the order dated 25.7.2006, recall of the aforesaid order has been refused by the court below. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that though there has been inordinate delay in filing of the written statement but in view of the fact that delay has occurred at different levels by the decision taking authorities, the same should have been condoned and the petition for recall of the earlier order dated 25.6.2003 ought to have been allowed. This Civil Revision is also time barred as there has been delay of about 1 and ½ months in filing of this Civil Revision. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 1. 6. No counter affidavit to I.A. No. 5813/2007 has been filed by the opposite party no. 1. 7. On being satisfied with the sufficiency of the reasons shown in the aforesaid, interlocutory application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing of the present civil revision is condoned. 8. Now, I proceed to decide the Civil Revision. 9. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners appending therewith copies of the communications made in between 21.2.2002 and 13.6.2003 as Annexure-1 to Annexure-9. It is submitted that despite the efforts as shown in aforesaid letters, there had been delay in filing of the written statement as the decisions were to be taken at different levels. However, the order whereby the petitioners were debarred from filing the written statement was passed on 25.6.2003. It is submitted that despite the efforts as shown in aforesaid letters, there had been delay in filing of the written statement as the decisions were to be taken at different levels. However, the order whereby the petitioners were debarred from filing the written statement was passed on 25.6.2003. That order Was neither challenged nor any review or recall petition was filed by the petitioners for more than two years. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party submitted that no explanation could be given by the opposite parties for allowing the written statement filed on 31.1.2006, i.e. more than two years even after passing of the earlier order dated 25.6.2006, which was sought to be recalled though some of the other defendants, also Government officials, have filed their written statements in time. It is further submitted that even in the supplementary affidavit filed before this Court there is no explanation as to why no action could be taken by the authority after passing of the order dated 25.6.2003 till filing of the recall petition in the month of January, 2006. It is also submitted that it is a money suit of the year 1999 and the plaintiff has been deprived from the amount he was entitled to receive after completion of the work. 10. Be that as it may, it is apparent from the impugned order itself that the court below has found that no cogent explanation could be put forward by the petitioners for recall of the earlier order dated 25.6.2003 whereby the petitioners were debarred from filing of the written statement. That order could have been challenged or review thereof could have been sought immediately thereafter but the petitioners did not take any step for more than two years for which also there was no explanation. Even before this Court also no sufficient ground could be put forward by the petitioners for setting aside the order passed by the trial court debarring the petitioners from filing the written statement. 11. In view of the above I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the court below. 12. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed.