IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1113 of 2007 RANJANA DEVI & ANR Versus SANDEEP KUMAR @ SHANTOO & ORS ----------- 2 09.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision application has been filed by defendant nos. 5 and 6 against the order dated 7.03.2007 passed by Munsif Ist Gaya in Title Suit No. 52 of 2003 by which the petition of the plaintiff under Order I, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by the said petition the plaintiff has sought for adding as many as thirteen persons as party defendants in the suit who are residing at different corners of the country as well as abroad. He submits that by adding them party he wants to delay the disposal of the suit as they will never appear and thereby the suit will never come to an end. He further submits that it was not necessary for them to be added as party in the suit. In view of the facts stated in the paragraph 17 of the plaint wherein the plaintiff has specifically said that the other heirs of Late Jagadish Narayan Verma are claiming no interest, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of the Order I, Rule 3A, court below ought not to have allowed the said petition. Hence learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court had committed illegality and material irregularity by allowing the said petition. The case of the defendants is that they purchased the disputed property from defendant no. 1 who claimed the property to have been given to him on the basis of oral partition among the heirs - 2 - of Late Jagadish Narayan Verma. In the written statement filed by defendant no. 1 question of non joinder and misjoinder of party has been raised. Since the claim was based on oral partition between the heirs of Late Jagadish Narayan Verma and allotment of the property in exclusive share of defendant no. 1, plaintiff has filed this petition for adding the other heirs of Late Jagadish Narayan Verma as party defendants. In the facts of the case, this Court does not find any error in exercise of the jurisdiction by the learned court below. This court is of the view that exercise of jurisdiction by the learned trial court in the matter of petition under Order I, Rule 10 filed by the plaintiff is not an exercise by which the case is decided and therefore does not call for consideration in the revisional jurisdiction of this court as amended by 2002 amendment. In that view of the matter, the revision application is not maintainable and it is dismissed. Kundan (J. N. Singh, J.)