IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21223 of 2011 Amar Singh Versus Chandrika Singh & Anr ---------------------------------- 02. 02.12.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this application against the order dated 01.08.2011, 02.09.2011 and 19.09.2011. By order dated 01.08.2011, the application filed by the respondents for expunging the name of Rukmini Devi, petitioner in Misc. Case was allowed. However, no direction was given for adding the name of the present respondents in her place. Therefore, another application was filed by the present respondents for adding their names which was allowed by the Court on 02.09.2011. Thereafter, the Review application was filed by the petitioner for reviewing the order dated 02.09.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in absence of the petitioner, the said order was passed and in fact, the respondents are not related with the original petitioner, Rukmini Devi. Therefore, they filed the Review application which has been wrongly rejected. From perusal of the order dated 01.08.2011, it appears that an application was filed stating that Rukmini, the original petitioner has died and, therefore, 2 in her place, the respondents sought to be added as petitioner. The Court below allowed the said application after hearing the parties. Thereafter, the respondents filed another application on 05.08.2011 for being added as party in place of Rukmini Devi. The petitioner did not file any objection. Nobody also appeared when the application was heard and, therefore, the prayer was allowed and the respondents were added as party. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the aforesaid order passed by the Court below. So far the order dated 19.09.2011 is concerned, the learned Court below rejected the Review application on the ground that only because the petitioner was not heard or that he was not present or that he did not file objection, no review can be made. I, therefore, also find no jurisdictional error in the order dated 19.09.2011. In my opinion, therefore, in supervisory jurisdiction, the orders challenged by the petitioner cannot be interfered with. So far the submission that the respondents are not related with Rukmini Devi is concerned, the petitioner may press this issue at the time of final hearing of the case. Thus, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)