IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2340 of 2007 MD. MUSLIM, Son of Late Sekh Kalimuddin, R/o Akhatayarpur, P.S. Sarai, District Purnea …… Defendant Ist set .. Opposite Party … Petitioner Versus 1. SK. RAJAQUE, Son of Sk. Semid 2. Sk. Samsul Son of Sk. Samid 3. Sk. Imamuddin, Son of Sk. Hamid 4. Sk. Jubair Son ofSk. Hamid 5. Sk. Kuvair, Son of Sk. Hamid ……. Defendant 2nd Set … Opp. Parties …. Opp. Parties 6. Rafat Jehan, wife of Hazibur Rahman, daughter of late Mohammad Yusuf, Resident of village Akhtiarpur, P.S. Sarai District Purnea ….. Defendant 3rd set … Opp. Party .. Opp Party 7. Sk. Hamid, Son of Late Manglu, R/o village Akhtiarpur, P.S. Sarai District Purnea …. Plaintiff … Applicant … Opp. Party ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate Mrs. Kumari Kiran, Advocate ------- 4 13.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil revision is directed against the order dated 14.8.2007 passed by Sadar Munsif, Purnea in Misc. Case No. 4 of 2004, whereby Misc. Case filed under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed and the order of dismissal of Title Suit No. 193 of 1995 was set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the different documents produced by this petitioner as well as plaintiff – petitioner – opposite party, 2 the date of death of his wife was under question. According to this petitioner, the wife of the plaintiff – petitioner – opposite party had died much before the date given by the plaintiff – petitioner – opposite party. However, it is submitted that even then, the Court concerned allowed the petition and set aside the order. The Court below had also taken into account the illness of the petitioner as well as on appreciation of evidence on record. It had come to the conclusion that the evidence led on behalf of the plaintiff – petitioner – opposite party was more cogent and convincing and, thus, had allowed the Misc. Case No. 4 of 2004 and set aside the Title Suit No. 193 of 1995. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error committed by the concerned court warranting interference of this Court in its discretionary civil revision jurisdiction. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)