IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19869 of 2011 Kailash Mistry Versus Satyendra Singh ---------------------------------- 3. 08.12.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant against the order dated 7.4.2011 whereby the learned court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner praying for passing an order to the effect that the suit has abated under Order 23 Rule 4 sub Rule 3 C.P.C. and deleted the name of defendant No.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defendant No.4 had his legal representatives but the plaintiff did not substitute the said legal representatives and therefore, the suit had abated but instead of passing such order the learned court below wrongly deleted the name of defendant No.4 From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the application for deleting his name was filed by the plaintiff on the ground that the names of the legal representatives have not been disclosed by the present petitioner. In such circumstances the learned court below observed that the plaintiff is not in a position to disclose the name of the legal representatives and on the other hand, the petitioner is also not disclosing the name of the legal representatives of the defendant No.4. In such circumstances the prayer of the plaintiff has been allowed. It appears in the present writ application and also the petitioner has not disclosed the name of the legal representatives of the defendant No.4. In such circumstances, I do not find any illegality or impropriety or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and, therefore, in my opinion, it cannot be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)