IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.233 of 1999 1. Kedar Singh @ Kedar Nath Singh 1(a) Triloki Singh Both sons of Ram Bali Singh 2. Mahashray Singh 3. Ragho @ Raghab Singh both sons of Ram Bijul Singh resident of Village Kamla Kant Kararia P.S.Mirganj Dist.Gopalganj Defendants-Appellants-Petitioners Versus 1. Paras Nath Singh S/o Munilal Rai 2. Janakdeo Rai S/o Krishnadeo Rai resident of Village Kamla Kant Kararia P.S.Mirganj Dist.Gopalganj Plaintiffs-respondents Ist set- Opposite parties 3. Ganga Devi w/o Jai Prakash Rai resident of Village Kamla Kant Kararia P.S.Mirganj Dist.Gopalganj 4. Lal Bedna Devi D/o Jhapai Singh & W/o Hari Rai Sharma 5. Sri Ram Kumar Sharma 6. Sri Sheo Kumar Sharma 7. Shri Deo Kumar Sharma 8. Shri Arun Kumar Sharma All sons of Hariraj Sharma 9A. Jagarnath Singh S/o Paltan Singh 9B Smt Legani Devi 9C Smt Mahna Devi 9D Smt Maida Devi D/o Paltan Singh resident of Village Kamla Kant Kararia P.S.Mirganj Dist.Gopalganj 10.Most. Rajpati Kuer W/o Bindeshwari Singh 11.Mostt. Ram Adhar Singh S/o Bindeshwari Singh 12.Sri Yogendra Singh 13.Sri Lalan Singh sons of Gujeshwar Singh 14.Mostt. Mukha Kuer W/o Gujeshwar Singh 15.Parvati Kuer W/o Sudama Singh 15A. Dinesh Singh S/o Sudama Singh 15B. Baidawati Devi W/o Kashi Singh R/o village Kali patti P.S. Mirganj Dist. Gopalganj presently Village Kamla Kant Kararia P.S.Mirganj Dist.Gopalganj 16.Mostt. Adhikari Kuer W/o Chandra Singh 17.Jaleshwar Singh 18.Dinanath Singh Sons of Chandra Singh 19.Sri Kumari Devi W/o Daroga Singh R/o Village Kharagi P.S. Siwan Dist. Siwan 20.Sri Radha Devi W/o Haribansh Rai Village Patkhauti Thana Kateya Dist. 21.Prabhu Nath Rai 21A Raghunath Rai sons of Bikrama Rai 21B Bishwanath Singh S/o Kamla Singh 21C Mostt. Sakla W/o Kamla Singh R/o Village Kamla Kant Kararia P.S.Mirganj Dist.Gopalganj 22.Sri Sheo Pujan Singh S/o Ram Subhag Singh resident of Village Kamla Kant Kararia P.S.Mirganj Dist.Gopalganj 23. Koshila Devi W/o Rajdeo Rai R/o Village Tarauchak P.S.Mirganj Dist.Gopalganj - 2 - 24.Babai Devi W/o Tetra Nath Rai R/o Village Gohpur Bajrhiya P.S. Maharajganj Dist. Siwan 25.Baijnath Singh 26.Bir Bahadur Singh S/o Lotan Singh R/o Village Kamla Kant Kararia P.S.Mirganj Dist.Gopalganj 27.Mostt. Kishore Kuer W/.o Lewatan Singh R/o Village Kamla Kant Kararia P.S.Mirganj Dist.Gopalganj 28.Kusum Devil W/o Feku Rai R/o Village Chandpur P.S. Maharajganj Dist. Siwan 29.Shail Kumari Devi W/o Ram Adhar Singh R/o Village Sabna P.S. Barhariya Dist. Siwan 30.Galar Kumari Devi W/o Jaleshwar Rai R/o Village Chandpur P.S. Maharajganj Dist. Siwan 31.Inarpati Devi W/o Dhrub Singh R/o Village Sage Sabna P.S. Barhariya Dist. Siwan 32.Bidya Kumari Devi W/o lKesho Rai 33.Raj Kumari D/o Lautan Singh 34.Ghivdhari Devi W/o Baldeo Signh Village Nawalpur P.S. Barharia Dist. Siwan 35.Baleshwar Singh 36.Sachidanand Singh R/o Village Sawna P.S. Barharia Dist. Siwan Plaintiffs-respondents - Opposite parties ----------- For the petitioners: Mr Dinesh Kumar Singh, Advocate ------------------ 16 09.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil review is directed against order dated 03.02.1998 passed in F.A. No. 460 of 1987 by which it was held that due to non-substitution of the heirs of deceased respondent nos. 16, 20, 21(c) and 35, the whole appeal had become incompetent and was accordingly, dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the report of the office was absolutely wrong as respondent no.20 is still alive. He further submits that the death of respondent no.16 would not affect the appeal as his heirs/sons are already on record as respondent nos. 17 to 18. He also avers that son/heir of the deceased respondent no.21(c) is already on record as respondent no.2(b). With regard to respondent no.35 learned counsel for the petitioners states that no - 3 - doubt he had died earlier but an application for substitution of his heirs had been filed bearing I.A. no. 11796 of 1999 on 27.10.1999. Hence he submits that the order of this court was passed under mis- conception. 4. From the facts and circumstances of the case as well as from the admitted position it is apparent that respondent no. 35 had died several years before the passing of the impugned order dated 03.02.1998 leaving behind heirs who were not parties to the appeal and no application for substitution was filed up till the said order and application was filed much belatedly on 27.10.1999 although there was no occasion for the appellants to file such an application as the entire appeal had already been dismissed one year eight months earlier on 03.02.1998. 5. It may be noted that the said first appeal has arisen out of partition suit in which every party is necessary and dismissal/ abatement of the suit/ appeal against even one of them would make the entire suit or appeal incompetent. 6. In the circumstance, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order dated 03.02.1998 nor does it find any fresh material to take a different view. Accordingly, this Civil Review petition is dismissed. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)