IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1128 of 2008 KUNKUN DAS @ KUNKUN MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 03/ 23.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent- original writ petitioner. It appears that this modification application has been filed for modification of the order dated 01.10.2007 passed in CWJC No.6729 of 2007. In the modification petition petitioner has asserted that the order was passed in the writ application with a direction to mutate the name of the writ petitioner and allow him to pay rent on the basis of the decree passed by the competent trial court in favour of the defendants. He submits that there were four defendants in the suit and decree was passed in their favour jointly. The said direction in the writ matter was also passed on the basis of the decree passed by the competent trial court, against which the State had not preferred any appeal. However, since the direction was issued to mutate the name of - 2 - the writ petitioner against the land in question and issue rent receipt, the writ petitioner has got the entire land mutated in his favour leaving aside other three defendants in whose favour also decree was passed. From perusal of the order dated 01.10.2007 passed in the writ matter, it appears that the same was passed solely on the basis that the competent civil court had passed the decree in favour of the defendants, which was noticed and accepted by this Court. Against the said order the State had not preferred any appeal till then. In view of the order and direction issued to the respondents to mutate the name of the writ petitioner in the records against the land in question, which was obviously issued on the basis of the decree, the names of all the decree holders jointly had to be mutated in the records of the State against the land in question and rent receipt had to be issued in their favour jointly. Therefore, order dated 01.10.2007 stands modified to the extent that the direction issued to the - 3 - respondents for mutation of the name shall be considered to mutate the name of all the decree holders in whose favour the civil court had passed the decree. The modification petition is allowed with said clarification. However, the writ petitioner will be at liberty to contest the claim of other co-decree holders in the matter, if he is so advised. ( J. N. Singh, J. ) A.H.