IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.786 of 2006 MURLI PANDEY & ORS Versus SHEO KUMAR PANDEY & ORS ----------- 6 10.11.2008 For the reasons mentioned in this application (I.A. No. 6887 of 2007), the same is allowed and the father’s name of opposite party no.3 may be read as Sheo Kumar Pandey in place of Late Sheo Kumar Pandey. Heard Mr. Rash Bihari Thakur, Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. V. Nath & Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay, Counsels for the opposite parties. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. All that has been done by the impugned order is that the suit has been held to be not maintainable and in fact abated in terms of Section 4(C) of the Consolidation Act. The reason for the same is also quite patent and clear. It was the petitioners’ prayer in the plaint which is out and out for partition. The Court below has found that such suit cannot proceed in terms of Section 4(C) of the Act. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioners with reference to an order of this Court dated 13.7.2000 in CWJC No. 5887 of 2000 that on the strength of the said order, the suit must be held to be maintainable, in 2 the opinion of this court, is only to be noted for its being rejected. This Court did not say any thing about the maintainability of the suit in the aforesaid order. All that was noted was certain findings given by the Director of the Consolidation and those findings got seal of approval by dismissal of the writ application. That being so, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order holding that the suit has abated, needs no interference. Accordingly, this civil revision application is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)