JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Defendant-Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.3.2007, passed by the Munsif, Patna City in Title Eviction Suit No. 11 of 2005, rejecting his petition dated 7.3.2007 filed for recall of order dated 29.11.2006. 3. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the court below vide order dated 13.10.2006 has not only denied an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine certain witnesses produced on behalf of the plaintiff, who is opposite party herein, but has also closed the evidence of the defendant in spite of the fact that there was no willful negligence or laches on his part. Accordingly, the aforesaid order dated 13.10.2006 was sought to be recalled by the defendant by filing a petition on 19.10.2006, but the same was also dismissed as not pressed on 18.11.2006. Again, the prayer for recall of the order was renewed on 29.11.2006, but the same was rejected on 24.1.2007. Subsequently, again a prayer for recall of earlier order was made on 7.3.2007, which has again been rejected by the impugned order dated 23.3.2007. The contention is that the court below ought to have given another opportunity for recall of certain witnesses of the plaintiff and also for examining the witnesses on behalf of the defendant. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the entire order sheets of the Eviction Suit concerned, which have been filed by him, go to reveal the negligence and deliberate laches on the part of the defendant-petitioner. The whole idea is to somehow delay the suit for eviction which has been filed on the ground of personal necessity. 5. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the plaintiff-opposite party. 6. On perusal of the materials on record and the certified copy of the order sheets of Title Eviction Suit No. 11/2005, it appears that on 1.9.2006, when PW-1 was examined, the learned counsel for the defendant did not cross-examine the witness on the ground that the defendant is not giving him instructions since last 4-5 dates. Thus, it was stated that the witness may be discharged. 7. Subsequently, PW-2 was examined and cross-examined on 14.9.2006. On 25.9.2006, PW-3 was examined and cross-examined in part. On 11.10.2006, cross-examination of PW-3 was concluded and the witness was discharged. Thus, it was stated that the witness may be discharged. 7. Subsequently, PW-2 was examined and cross-examined on 14.9.2006. On 25.9.2006, PW-3 was examined and cross-examined in part. On 11.10.2006, cross-examination of PW-3 was concluded and the witness was discharged. On 12.10.2006, PW-4 was examined by the plaintiff, but nobody appeared to cross-examine the witness, thus, the witness was discharged. On the next date, i.e. 13.10.2006, the statement of PW-5 on affidavit was filed and the witness was examined. However, nobody appeared on behalf of the defendant to cross-examine him. Thus, the witness was discharged and since the plaintiff did not intend to examine any other witness, his evidence was closed. 18th October, 2006 was fixed for leading evidence on behalf of the defendant. On 18.10.2006 also a time petition was filed on behalf of the defendant which was allowed on imposition of costs of Rs. 100/-. On the next date (19.10.2006) instead of examining his witness, the defendant filed a petition for recall of PW-1 & PW-4 for the purpose of cross-examination. On 3.11.2006, the next date for hearing of the aforesaid application was fixed on 18.11.2006. On 18.11.2006 again nobody appeared on behalf of the defendant to press the aforesaid petition dated 19.10.2006, thus, the same was dismissed as not pressed and 24.11.2006 was fixed for leading evidence on behalf of the defendant. On the next fixed date also, a petition was filed for recall of the order dismissing the aforesaid petition which was dismissed on 24.11.2006. Again on 29.11.2006, nobody appeared on behalf of the defendant, thus, his evidence was closed and 6.12.2006 was fixed for hearing of the case. However, subsequent thereto again a petition for recall of PWs 1, 4 & 5 was filed which was dismissed by a detailed reasoned order dated 23.1.2007/24.1.2007 on the ground of deliberate laches on the part of the defendant. However, again a petition for recall of the order dated 29.11.2006 was filed on 7.3.2007 by the defendant. 8. The court below on consideration of rival submissions and also on consideration of the materials on record came to the conclusion that there had been deliberate laches on the part of the defendant and the whole motive of the defendant was to somehow delay the proceedings of the Title Eviction Suit concerned. It had dismissed the petition aforesaid of the defendant-petitioner by the impugned order dated 23.3.2007. 9. It had dismissed the petition aforesaid of the defendant-petitioner by the impugned order dated 23.3.2007. 9. In the opinion of this Court, the trial court has not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in its discretionary revisional jurisdiction. 10. As a result, this Civil Revision fails and the same is dismissed.