IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2341 of 2007 Kapurchand Prasad, son of Sri Raja Ram Prasad, resident of village Mauza and P.O. Inai, Pargana Manjhi, P.S. Rivilganj, District Saran at present residing at Mohalla ,Mauna Pargana Manjahi, P.O. and P.S. Chapra Town, District Saran. …Defendant-Petitioner. Versis Thakur Durgeshwar Ji Maharaj through Sri Madhav Prasad, son of Sri Vishwanath Prasad, resident of village Mansanpura @ Nanki Nagar, Pargana Bal, P. S. and P.O. Garkha, District Saran. …Heir of Plaintiff-Opposite Party. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Singh and Raghwan Prasad, Advocates For the Opp. Party : None. ------- 04/ 13.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 04.07.2007, by which learned Civil Judge-I, Junior Division, Chapra, rejected his petition dated 18.07.2006 for recall/review of order dated 05.09.2005 passed in Eviction Suit No. 85 of 1991, by which application filed by Sri Madhav Prasad was allowed and he was substituted in place of his mother, namely, Smt. Kanak Prasad, who was the Sebait of the plaintiff, namely the deity Thakur Durgeshwar Ji Maharaj. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed 18 years back for eviction of the defendant-petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent, wherein the defendant-petitioner appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement claiming that he was not a defaulter. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and evidence were led on behalf of both the parties, whereafter it was closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit is fixed for arguments of the parties. 2 4. It transpires that the suit was filed by the plaintiff- opposite party, namely, Thakur Durgeshwar Ji Maharaj, who was a deity and owned the suit property. Since its Sebait was Smt. Kanak Prasad, the said suit was filed through her and subsequently when she died, her son, Shri Madhav Prasad filed an application on 19.04.2005 for substituting him as the Sebait of the plaintiff. The said application was allowed by the learned court below vide order dated 05.09.2005 (Annexure 2). 5. From the said order, it transpires that no objection was raised by any body against the said application. It further transpires that about ten months thereafter the defendant-petitioner filed an application dated 18.07.2006 for review/recall of the said order dated 05.09.2005 stating that the said Madhav Prasad was not the Sebait of the deity nor was he looking after it and hence order of his substitution be recalled. It may be noted in this connection that the petitioner, who was defendant in the court below, did not challenge the said order of the learned court below dated 05.09,.2005 before any higher court of law . However, the learned court below while passing its order dated 04.07.2007 specifically found that there was no error apparent on the face of the record with respect to order dated 05.09.2005 nor there is any material to show that the said order was wrong and hence the said application of the defendant-petitioner was dismissed by the impugned order dated 04.07.2007. 6. It further transpires from the records of the case that 3 there is no dispute that Smt. Kanak Prasad was the Sebait of the plaintiff-deity and she had died leaving behind Sri Madhav Prasad as her son. It may be noted that neither the Board nor any one else has raised any objection before the court below that Sri Madhav Prasad was not the Sebait of the deity and was not looking after it, rather it is only the defendant-petitioner, who had been raising such frivolous and baseless objection. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has argued at length, but it is quite apparent that he is oblivious of the fact that the plaintiff has not been substituted, rather merely the name of the Sebait of the plaintiff-deity has been changed due to the death of the earlier Sebait. Furthermore, the defendant-petitioner being the tenant and having not claimed to be the Sebait himself cannot be legally allowed to delay the disposal of the suit on such a frivolous pretext. 7. This Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below rather it is surprised that due to such frivolous efforts unnecessary long time is being taken in an eviction suit. In the said circumstances, this civil revision is dismissed with a direction to the learned court below to thwart any unnecessary effort of any of the parties to delay the disposal of the suit and to immediately start day to day argument in the eviction suit, if not already done, and dispose it off expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. . MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )