IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1450 of 2006 BIRENDRA PASWAN @ BUDHDEO PASWAN Versus SHEODAHIN PASWAN & ANR ----------- 4. 20.11.2008 No one appears for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court the impugned order allowing the prayer of the defendant- opposite parties in a case arising out of Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The court below has given cogent reasons in the impugned order holding that neither summon through Nazarat or through registered letter had been duly served on the defendants in Partition Suit No. 77/1981. The court has also found that the gazette publication by way of substituted service has also not been done at the correct and proper address and even the name of the village of the defendant opposite party was wrongly recorded as Haspura in stead of Hasanpur. There being sufficient consideration of this aspect that the defendant- opposite parties were precluded from contesting the suit on merit on account of non-service of summons on them, the view taken by the court below of allowing prayer 2 of the defendant- opposite parties under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. does not suffer from any jurisdictional error and would call for no interference by this Court on limited exercise of powers under section 115 C.P.C. That being so, this application is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/