IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.246 of 2008 ---- Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad @ Bhushan Shah, Son of Mahadeo Sao @ Mahadeo Mandal, resident of Village-Asarganj, P.S. Tarapur, District-Munger. -- Defendant- petitioner. Versus 1. Sheo Shankar Sah 2. Prem Kumar Sah, 3. Madan Kumar, 4. Bijay Kumar, All sons of Balram Sah, resident of village- Makwa, P.S. Tarapur, District-Munger. 5. Rajendra Prasad Sao @Rajendra Prasad Mandal S/o Mahadeo Sao Resident of Village-Asarganj, P.S.-Tarapur, District-Munger. -- Plaintiffs-Opposite parties. ----- For the petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh-II, Advocate. For opposite party no.1 : Mr. Pravin Chandra Prasad, Advocate. ---- 04. 16.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite party no.1. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 12.12.2007 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-II, Munger allowed the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff for substitution of her three sons, although she had died before the filing of the said application during the pendency of Title Suit No.109 of 1978. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the original plaintiff Lakshmi Devi (mother of opposite parties no.1 to 4) for partition of the suit claiming a share in the suit property. The said suit was contested by the defendant on various issues, including the issue of maintainability of the suit on the basis of rejection of a previous title suit filed by the original plaintiff. - 2 - 4. It transpires that the original plaintiff Lakshmi Devi died on 12.09.2007, whereafter an application dated 11.10.2007 was filed through her lawyer on behalf of the plaintiff for substitution of her four sons (opposite parties). This application has been allowed by the learned court below vide its order dated 12.12.2007 against which the instant civil revision has been filed. 5. Although, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner vehemently challenges the said order of the learned court below, but from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite apparent that the original plaintiff Lakshmi Devi died on 12.09.2007 and the application for substitution was filed within time on 11.10.2007. It further transpires that the said application contained verifications of three sons of the original plaintiff and was also accompanied by a duly executed vakalatnama on behalf of the said heirs. In the said circumstances wrong mentioning on the first page of the said application that the substitution application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff the said application cannot legally be rejected as it might be a clerical or typographical error that in stead of petitioners/applicants, the word “plaintiff” had been used in the said application. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)