IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1153 of 2007 TRIPURARI PRASAD SINGH & ANOR Versus KUMARI RENU SINHA @ BINA SINHA ----------- C.R. No.1496 of 2008 TRIPURARI PRASAD SINGH Versus KUMARI RENU SINHA@BINA SINHA ----------- 2. 15.9.2008 No one appears for the petitioners. The impugned order dated 14.03.2007 assailed in C.R. No. 1153/2007 rejecting the application of the defendant petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. From the impugned order itself it is clear that the only plea of the petitioners for rejecting the plaint was based on an allegation that no cause of action was disclosed in the plaint of the suit. This Court however on perusal of plaint would find that the cause of action being bundle of fact had been clearly set out with a categorical averments therein That being so, this Court would find that the order passed by the court below is perfectly correct and cannot be interfered by this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2 Coming to the second case, C.R.No. 1496/2008, this Court would find that the impugned order dated 27.05.2008 rejecting one more issue to be added at the behest of the defendant petitioner is not only belated but is even otherwise misconceived. From the impugned order, it would be clear that five issues were framed on 12.3.2007 and thereafter the suit was pending for recording evidence since 7.6.2007 and after almost one year of framing of issues an application was filed by the petitioner on 07.03.2008 for adding one more issue. That being so, this Court would not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Thus both the civil revision applications being wholly misconceived are hereby dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/