IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.613 of 2009 BASUDEO PRASAD, S/O LATE RAM CHANDRA PRASAD, R/O LAHERIA TOLA, P.S.-KOTWALI, DISTRICT-GAYA. …………DEFENDANT/PETITIONER. Versus 1. GAURISHANKAR PRASAD, S/O LATE RAMCHANDRA PRASAD, R/O MOHALLA-MAKHLOTGANJ MIRJA DOST MOHAMMAD LANE, P.S.-KOTWALI, DISTRICT-GAYA. …………PLAINTIFF………O.P. NO. 1 2(a) CHINTA DEVI, W/O LATE SITA RAM PRASAD (b) SHYAM SUNDAR PRASAD (c) RAJ KUMAR (d) SURAJ KUMAR ALL SONS OF LATE SITA RAM PRASAD (e) RINKY DEVI, D/O LATE SITA RAM PRASAD ALL RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA-KABEER BAGH, P.S.- KOTWALI, DISTRICT-GAYA. 3. RUKMINI DEVI, W/O KESHWAR PRASAD AND D/O LATE RAM CHANDAR PRASAD, R/O PUNPUN BAZAR, P.S.- PUNPUN, DISTRICT-PATNA. 4. KUSUM DEVI, W/O RAMCHANDAR PRASAD AND D/O LATE RAM CHANDAR PRASAD, R/O MOHALLA-MAKHLOTGANJ MIRJA DOST-MOHAMMAD, LANE, P.S.-KOTWALI, DISTRICT-GAYA. 5. OM PRAKASH @ MINTU KUMAR 6. DHARAMVEER KUMAR SONS OF LATE JAGDISH PRASAD BOTH RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA-SUBASH CHAUK, INLANE BESIDES OF DRUG HOUSE TUNGARI, P.S. & P.O. CHAIBASA, DISTRICT-CHAIBASA (JHARKHAND). …………DEFENDANTS………O.P. NO. 2. ----------- 2 21.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision application has been filed by the defendant no. 1 against order dated 18.11.2008 passed by Sub-Judge-VIth, Gaya in Partition Suit No. 51 of 2008 by which petition under Order I Rule 10 filed by heirs of the deceased defendant no. 2 has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendant no. 2 had died long before but he was made party in the suit and therefore, the suit was not maintainable against a dead person. However, the heirs of deceased defendant no. 2 have themselves appeared in the suit and filed petition under Order 1 Rule 10 - 2 - for adding them party in the suit. It appears that in those circumstances, the court below has rejected the petition of the petitioner-defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 and has allowed the petition of the heirs of the deceased defendant no. 2. This Court does not find any error in the approach of the court below and therefore, does not find any merit in the revision application. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in terms of under Order 1 Rule 10 (4) a plaint has to be amended by adding the newly added defendants and the copy of the amended plaint has to be served on the original defendant also which has not been ordered by the court below. This matter, the defendant-petitioner, can raise before the court below which shall pass necessary orders in this respect in terms of the provisions of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of Order I of C.P.C. in accordance with law. With above observations, this revision application is disposed of. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)