IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.838 of 2008 1. MOST. KALYANI DEVI, wife of Late Loknath Jaiswal (Bhagat), D/o Late Surendra Choudhary, R/o Village and P.S. – Janki Nagar, Distt. – Purnea….. (Substituted Defendant No. 1-C in the court below), and 2. Dilip Choudhary @ Dilip Kumar Choudhary, S/o Late Surendra Choudhary, R/o Village – Deoda, P.O. & P.S. – Banka, Distt. – Banka …… (Substituted Defendant No. 1-A in the court below)…………….……… Petitioners Versus 1. ARUN MIRDHA, S/o Late Harish Mirdha, 2. Most. Dulari Devi, wife of Late Arjun Turi, D/o Late Haris Mirdha, R/o Village – Fulhara, P.S. Belhar, Distt. – Banka, 3. Kamali Devi, wife of Pramod Turi, D/o Late Harish Mirdha, R/o Village – Bhali, P.O. Beldiha, P.S. – Belhar, Distt. – Banka, 4. Devendra Mirdha, 5. Labu Mirdha, 6. Santosh Mirdha, Sl. Nos. 4 to 6 are sons of Late Lalahi Mirdha, 7. Most. Kusmi Devi, wife of Late Lalahi Mistry, 8. Raju Mirdha, son of Late Jaggu Mirdha, all residents of Village – Deoda, P.O. & P.S. – Banka, Distt. – Banka (Plaintiffs in the court below), 9. Shashi Kant Choudhary, son of Late Surendra Choudhary, R/o Village – Deoda, P.O. & P.S. – Banka, Distt. – Banka (substituted defendant no. 1 in the court below) and 10. Renu Devi, wife of Indra Shekhar Choudhary, D/o Late Surendra Choudhary, R/o Village, P.O. & P.S. Kiranpur, Distt. – Saharsa (substituted defendant no. 1-D in the court below)…………………………………... Opposite parties. ----------- 3. 19.03.2009. Heard Mr. Vinod Shankar Modi, learned counsel for the petitioners. - 2 - The defendants – petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 26.04.2008, passed by the Munsif, Banka in T.S. No. 28/85, whereby the court below has refused the prayer for setting up a counter claim at the stage when the case was fixed for hearing on final submissions on behalf of the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been substituted in place of their father and they have a case slightly different from their father and, as such, they wanted to set up a counter claim with regard to 1.5 decimals of land out of the suit land. The trial court upon consideration of the rival submissions of the parties had come to the conclusion that a written statement had already been filed by the father of the petitioners wherein he did not choose to set up any counter claim. After his death, the petitioners were substituted and thereafter they wanted to set up a counter claim which not was done by the original defendant. It was further observed that the case is at the final stage and had been fixed for hearing on final submissions on behalf of the parties and, thus, the prayer had been refused. - 3 - I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 26.04.2008. This Civil Revision is dismissed. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )