IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.590 of 2007 Md. Ejaz Ahmad son of Late Md. Ashfaque, Resident of Mohalla Bakarganj, P.S. Pirbahore, District Patna. …..Defendant-Petitioner. Versus 1. Syed Mohammad Iqbal Hussain, son of Late Syed Mohammad Hefazat Hussain, resident of Mohalla Bakarganj, P.S. Pirbahore, District Patna. ……Plaintiff-Opposite party 1st set. 2. Md. Ibrahim and sons, a registered Partnership Firm through its partner Md. Mushtaque, at Ashok Raj Path, P.S. Pirbahore, District Patna. 3. Md. Mushtaque 4. Md. Shahid, both sons of Late Md Ishaque. And partner of the firm Md. Ibrahim and sons and all resident of Mohalla Bakarganj, P.S. Pirbahore, P.O. Bankipur, District Patna. ……Defendants-Opposite Parties 2nd set. For the petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate. For opposite party no.1 : M/s J.S. Arora and Ajay Kumar @ Srivastava, Advocates. ----------- 03/ 06.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite party no.1. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 10.01.2007 by which learned Munsif-III, Patna, rejected his application dated 19.09.2006 for review of his earlier order dated 09.08.2006 (Annexure-3) passed in Eviction Suit No.17 of 2004. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole plaintiff- opposite party no.1 for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises on the ground of his bonafide personal requirement. The said suit was contested and during the pendency of the suit 2 original defendant no.3 Md. Ashfaque died leaving behind several heirs including the petitioner, who was also a defendant in the said suit. 4. It transpires that on 19.01.2006 the defendant- petitioner filed an application in the learned court below for dismissing the suit as all the heirs of his father, namely the deceased original defendant no.3 Md. Ashfaque, had not been impleaded in the suit. The said application was dismissed by the learned court below vide order dated 09.08.2006 holding that there was no occasion for dismissing the entire suit as one of the heirs of deceased (original defendant no.3) was already a party to the suit. It was also held that if the remaining legal heirs and successors of the original deceased defendant no.3 want to be made parties they will be at liberty to file a substitution application with respect thereto. 5. It transpires that the defendant-petitioner filed an application dated 19.09.2006 before the learned court below for review of its earlier order dated 09.08.2006 and the said application was rejected by the learned court below after considering the entire matter in detail vide its order dated 10.01.2007, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 6. Although learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenged the said order, but from the facts and circumstances of the case as well as from the materials available on the record it is quite apparent that order dated 09.08.2006 was 3 legal and proper and there was no occasion for the learned court below to dismiss the suit only on the ground that the other heirs of deceased original defendant no.3 were not impleaded. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )