IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.678 of 2007 AJAY KUMAR SINGH @ AJAY SINGH, son of Late Sakaldeep Singh, R/o Village – Naya Tola, Bichla Telpa, Near Police Line, Chapra, P.O. – Chapra, P.S. – Chapra Town, Distt. Saran Chapra ………. Defendant / Petitioner Versus 1. UMAPATI PATHAK, son of Brij Mohan Pathak, R/o Village – Naya Tola, Bichla Telpa, P.S. Chapra, Town, Distt. – Saran, Chapra, 2. Smt. Shivkumari Pathak, wife of Shri Umapati Pathak, R/o Village – Naya Tola, Bichla Telpa, P.S. – Chapra Town, Distt. Saran, Chapra …… Plaintiff / Opp. Party 1st, 3. Shiv Nath Singh @ Master Singh, son of Late Sakaldeep Singh and 4. Manoj Singh, S/o Late Sakaldeep Singh, both (4 / 5) R/o Village Naya Tola, Bichla Telpa, Near Police Line, Chapra, P.O. Chapra, P.S. Chapra Town, Distt. Saran, Chapra …….. Defendants / Opposite Parties IInd. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Rana Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate. ----------- 3. 18.11.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The defendant – petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.12.2006 passed by the Munsif III, Saran, Chapra in Title Suit No. 203 of 1987 whereby he has been directed to comply the order dated 08.01.1988 within fifteen days. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order dated 08.01.1988 was not passed in the presence of this defendant as this defendant had admittedly not appeared on 08.01.1988 and, thus, to that effect there is an error in the impugned order. It is further stated that the suit was dismissed for default on 2 07.01.1999 itself. However, after revival of the suit, the order passed earlier cannot be held to have automatically revived. It is also submitted that the original defendant had died and the petitioner is the legal representative of the original defendant and, in between, the suit has also been dismissed for default, thus, the aforesaid cannot be binding upon the petitioner. I do not find any force in the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner. The certified copy of the order dated 08.01.1988 was produced before this Court for perusal at the time of hearing of this case. It appears from the aforesaid order that the defendant was directed to remove the concerned wall to enable passage to the plaintiff. That order was neither challenged nor any petition for review or recall of that order had been filed by the defendant. It is true that subsequently the suit was dismissed for default, but the same had been revived also. If an order is passed either in favour or against a party to the suit and, if subsequently that party dies and his legal representatives are substituted in his place, the same would also be binding upon the legal 3 representatives. Even after appearing in the suit, the petitioner did not take any step either for recall or review of the earlier order passed against the original defendant. Thus, that order having attained finality has to be obeyed. In that view of the matter, the trial court has again directed the defendant to obey the order within fifteen days. In the above view of the matter, I do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the court below in the impugned order dated 27.12.2006. This Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )