JUDGEMENT 1. This revision application is time barred. 2. I.A. No. 469/2009 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the revision application. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the limitation application, I am of the view that sufficient grounds have been made out for condoning the delay in filing the civil revision application. The aforementioned Interlocutory Application is allowed. The delay in filing the revision application is condoned. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the revision application. 5. The defendant-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.8.2008, passed by the Sub-Judge 1st, Sitamarhi in Title Suit No. 238/02, whereby his petition for recall of the order dated 22.5.2005 as also for recall of the witnesses, who had been examined on behalf of the plaintiffs, has been dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below ought to have allowed his petition in the interest of justice and should have given an opportunity to the petitioner by accepting the written statement and recalling the five witnesses, who had already been examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. 7. The case was earlier heard on 28.1.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought for adjournment of the case for bringing on record the entire order sheet of the case. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner on 10.2.2009, annexing therewith a copy of the order sheet. The order sheet itself goes to reveal the negligence on the part of the defendant-petitioner. The trial court has observed in the impugned order that on 4.8.2005 written statement was filed by the defendant-petitioner with a petition to recall the order dated 22.5.2004 whereupon the court proceeded for hearing in the absence of the defendant. That petition itself was not pressed on the fixed date resulting in its dismissal on 19.9.2006. Thereafter, the defendant-petitioner did not take any step for about two years and, on 27.8.2008, had filed a petition for recall of the order dated 22.5.2004/22.5.2005. 8. On the last occasion, it was found that no cogent reason had been shown by the defendant-petitioner for his omission to take any step during the aforesaid period of two years from 19.9.2006 to 27,8.2008. 8. On the last occasion, it was found that no cogent reason had been shown by the defendant-petitioner for his omission to take any step during the aforesaid period of two years from 19.9.2006 to 27,8.2008. Today a supplementary affidavit has been brought on record wherein the aforesaid laches have been tried to be explained, However, from the impugned order it does not appear that those grounds were placed at the time of hearing of this matter before the court below. The aforesaid petition dated 27.8.2008, on which the impugned order has been passed, has not been brought on record by the defendant-petitioner to enable this Court to examine whether such grounds were taken or not even though the petitioner was granted adjournment to file supplementary affidavit. The laches, thus, continue. 9. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I do not find this to be a fit case where this Court should exercise its discretionary power of revisional jurisdiction. 10. As a result, the Civil Revision is dismissed.