IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.288 of 2009 The Central Bank of India, Patna Main Branch, New Dak Bungalow Road, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna ---- Plaintiff --- Petitioner. Versus 1. M/S Gopi Nath Badri Nath, 104, Puspanjali Plaza, Boring Road, P.S. S.K. Puri, District- Patna. 2. Sri Vijay Narain Arora alais Sri Vijay Arora, son of late Ram Narain Arora Proprietor of M/S Gopi Nath Badri Nath, 104, Puspanjali Plaza, Boring Road, P.S. S.K. Puri, District- Patna. 3. Smt. Madhu Arora, wife of Sri Vijay Narain Arora, 104, Pushpanjali Plaza, Boring Road, P.S. S.K. Puri, District Patna, proprietor of M/S Vinayak Furniture situated at Naseema Building, Frazer Road, P.S. Kotwali, District- Patna ---- Defendants --- Opposite Party Ist Set. 4. Sanjay Kumar Kashyap, son of Bhola Prasad. 5. Rupak Kumar, son of Bhola Prasad. 6. Hiramani Devi, wife of Bhagwan Prasad Kashyap 7. Sangita Devi, wife of Ajay Kumar 8. Sujeet Kumar Jaiswal, son of Rajendra Prasad Choudhary, opposite party nos. 4 to 8 all residents of Hajiganj, P.S. Chowk, Patna City, District-Patna ---Intervener petitioners --- Opposite party 2nd set. ---------------------------------- 6. 18.11.2011 Heard Mr. Bimlendu Mishra for the petitioner, and Mr. S.D. Sanjay for opposite party nos. 5 to 8. The plaintiff of Title Mortgage Suit No. 23 of 2003 has filed this revision application under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and challenges the validity of the order dated 22.11.2008, passed by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge II, Patna City, whereby the application filed by the purchasers to be impleaded as 2 defendants has been allowed. On a perusal of the materials on record, it appears to us that the impugned order does not operate to the prejudice of the petitioner. We do not find fault with the impugned order. The revision application is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.)