IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.145 of 2008 Smt. Hiramani Devi W/o Late Sudama Prasad Singh, resident of village Bajanchak, P.S. Naubatpur, District Patna, at present residing at village Dhibari, P.S. Sakurabad, District Jehanabad. …Intervener/petitioner/petitioner V e r s u s 1. Smt. Shanti Devi D/o Late Ram Naresh Pd. Singh W/o Sri Raja Ram Sharma, resident of village Dhanarua, P.S. and Post Dhanarua, District Patna. …………Plaintiff/Opposite 1st Party/Opposite party 2. Satish Kumar @ Raju 3. Rabi Kumar 4 Chitranjan Kumar Sons of Hriday Narain Singh, resident of village Tinari, P.S. Mausurhi, Patna. 5. Smt. Suryakanti Devi D/o Late Net Narain Pd. Singh, resident of village and Post Lari, P.S. Kurtha, District Jehanabad. 6. Brij Nandan Sharma 7. Surya Nandan Sharma sons of late Net Narain Prasad Singh. 8. Deepu 9. Dinu @ Kaju sons of Sri Brij Nandan Sharma 10.Puttu son of Sri Surya Nandan Sharma. Opposite party no. 6 to 10 are residient of village Bajanchak, P.S. Naubatpur, Patna. ……Defendants/Opposite II party/Opposite 2nd Parties. For the petitioner : Navin Pd. Singh, Advocate. For opposite party no.I : Ms. Neelam Kumari, Advocate. ----------- 06/ 02.12.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. This petition has been filed for review of order dated 28.04.2008 by which Civil Revision No. 1081 of 2007 was dismissed. The said civil revision was filed by the intervener petitioner challenging order dated 15.03.2007 by which the learned Munsif- Danapur rejected her petition on 14.11.2006 for deciding the 2 pecuniary jurisdiction as preliminary issue in Partition Suit No. 143 of 1989, as the hearing of the suit of 1989 was at its fag end. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing of the civil revision was unable to show any jurisdictional error in the order under challenge which was necessary for deciding a civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even today no jurisdictional error could be pointed out in the said order of the learned court below. So far the observations made in the earlier order of this court are concerned, those observations were made on the basis of submissions of the parties in presence of learned counsel for other parties. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any error apparent on the face of record nor does it find any fresh material which was not available with the petitioner earlier despite her due diligence nor does it find any other reason to review the order under challenge. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J)