IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.273 of 2008 1. NIRMALA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE JAI PRAKASH LALL (DECEASED) 2. SONY GUPTA WIDOW AND PURPOSED HEIR OF LATE ANIL KUMAR GUPTA, BOTH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA RAMNA ROAD, P.S. CIVIL LINE, DISTRICT GAYA. 3. SMT. ANITA DEVI, D/O LATE JAI PRAKASH LALL (DECEASED) W/O MANOJ PRASAD, RESIDENT OF G.T. ROAD, OPPOSITE CHANDASI DAWAKHANA, AURANGABAD, BIHAR. 4. SEEMA DEVI, D/O LATE JAI PRAKASH LALL (DECEASED) W/O RAJESH KUMAR, RESIDENT OF PIPARPANTI, OPPOSITE ALKA CINEMA, BUXAR, BIHAR. 5. BHARTI KUMARI @ BHARTI GUPTA, D/O LATE JAI PRAKASH LALL (DECEASED), D.M.O.I.I.A. ID, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA RAMNA ROAD, P.S. CIVIL LINE, DISTRICT GAYA. AT PRESENT POOJA SAMAGRI SHOP, BARBIL BAXAR, P.S. BARBIL, DISTRICT KIURIJHAR, ORISSA – 758035. ---- DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS- PETITIONERS Versus 1. PANNA LAL, SON OF KUKHAN SAO ---- (PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-OPPOSITE PARTY) 2. SONIA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE JHANNA LALL (DECEASED) 3. RAJU PRASAD, SON OF LATE JHANNA LALL (DECEASED) 4. JITENDRA PRASAD, SON OF LATE JHANNA LALL (DECEASED) ALL RESIDENT OF MOHALLA RAMNA ROAD, P.S. CIVIL LINE, DISTRICT GAYA. 5. DULARI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE RAMOUTAR SAO, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MASAURHI, P.S. MASAURHI, DISTRICT PATNA. 6. RAM PARI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE LAXMI PRASAD, NEAR SURAJ KUND, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA DEOGHAT, P.S. CIVIL LINE, GAYA, DISTRICT GAYA. ---- DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 7 21.6.2010 This application has been filed on behalf of the defendants-appellants challenging the order passed in I.A. No. 1747 of 2006 and I.A. No. 2356 of 2007 arising out of First Appeal No. 61 of 2006. The review application has been filed on the ground that the Court has wrongly recorded that all three houses are on the main road and that no objections were filed by the appellants before the Advocate Commissioner. In any event the aforesaid two facts have not influenced the Court in passing the impugned order. The two houses are on the main road and one house is behind the other. All are well situated and as such this is not a fact which could have changed the tenor of the order. As far as the submission that no objections were filed, it appears that objections were filed but were not pressed, 2 in any event no such objections were raised during argument of this case which are now being purported to be raised before this Court. Having dealt with the fact that there is no ground made out for reviewing the order, I may refer to the other submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. It has been argued that the petitioners are prejudiced by the order. In fact I do not see what prejudice could possibly be caused to them. The Court had directed the executing Court to record as to which of the parties were in possession of the three houses. It goes without saying that in case any one or other party would be heard if dissatisfied with the order passed by this Court. In any event the report of the Advocate Commissioner shows that Smt. Nirmala Devi (respondent) the petitioner here, is in possession of the third floor of holding no. 83, the middle floor (second floor) is occupied by Sonia Devi [respondent] two rooms are occupied by Panna Lal (plaintiff) opposite party and the rest of the ground floor is occupied by Sonia Devi. It is also stated that two rooms in the lane of holding no. 83 are also occupied by Nirmala Devi. The Advocate Commissioner’s report further indicates that Nirmala Devi (respondent/petitioner) occupies the first floor of holding no. 60 and Sonia Devi occupies one room. There is a Puja room which is common to all. There is a shop which is in possession of Panna Lal and two shops are in possession of Sonia Devi. All three shops of holding no. 3 are in possession of Nirmala Devi. 3 The report therefore, shows that Panna Lal was in possession of two rooms in holding no. 83 and one shop in holding no. 60. By the impugned order Panna Lal has been granted the possession of two shops in holding no. 3 whereas his residential portion of holding no. 3 has been allotted to the person who is already in occupation of the said holding which is apparently Nirmala Devi. In view of the aforesaid facts, I do not find any reason to review my order as it does not come within the purview of Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This application is dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)