IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1590 of 2006 MD.HASIM & ORS Versus BALDEO PRASAD CHAUDHARY & ORS ----------- 4 06.01.2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application (I.A. No. 4008 of 2006), the delay in filing of this Civil Revision application is hereby condoned. For the reasons mentioned in the application (I.A. No. 1863 of 2008), the petitioner No.1 who is said to have died during the pendency of this Civil Revision application on 17.3.2007 leaving behind the heirs as named in paragraph No. 3 of the said application is allowed and the heirs are directed to be substituted in place of the petitioner No.1. In view of the fact that the Court below while considering the prayer of the defendants-petitioners as with regard to the suit being barred by resjudicata has recorded the following findings :- “Heard the learned lawyers of both sides, certified copy of judgment of T.S. No. 2/76 has been filed and I have come through the judgment and in that judgment the Court has held that the disputed wall belongs to the defendant and the plaintiffs have got no right, title and interest in the same. So in the previous i.e. T.S. No. 2/76 - 2 - the disputed properties is only western wall measuring 10” wide in Khesra No. 2618 under Khata No. 467 whereas in the present suit the suit property is whose plot No. 1866 and its old plot no. is 2618 . So the suit property is not the same in both the suit.” this Court would not find any reason to take a different view. In fact even otherwise there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Accordingly, this Civil Revision application is wholly misconceived and is hereby dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)