IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.419 of 2008 1. Ramashish Singh 2. Bhagwati Singh 3. Wakil Singh 4. Sudama Singh @ Barister Singh, all sons of late Jang Bahadur Rai, all residents of Sahwalia Khurd, P.O. Biso Dihari, P.S. Kargahar, O.P. Parsathua, District-Rohtas ------ ------------ Plaintiffs ---- Petitioners. Versus 1. Raghupati Rai, son of late Chandrika Rai. 2. Ram Pratap Singh, son of late Sadhu Rai 3. Prabhawati Kuer, wife of late Ram Ekbal Singh. 4. Ram Suresh Singh, son of Raghupati Rai 5. Tulsi Kuer wife of late Ramadhar Rai 6. Surendra Pratap Singh,son of Sri Ram Pratap Singh. 7. Sanjay Singh, son of late Ram Ekbal Singh, all residents of Village-Samhuta, P.O. Pipra (Sakarwar) P.S. Kargahar, O.P. Parsathua, District-Rohtas. 8. Smt. Param Sundari Devi, wife of Birendra Singh, resident of Village-Dewaria, P.O. Dewaria, P.S. Mohania, District-Kaimur (Bhabua). 9. Smt. Urmila Devi, wife of Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, resident of Village-Aowar, P.O. Aowar, P.S. Sonhal, District- Kaimur (Bhabua). 10. Rajeshwar Singh, son of late Chandrika Rai 11. Bir Bahadur Singh 12. Sunil Kumar Singh, both sons of Rajeshwar Singh, all 10 to 12 resident of village-Samhuta, P.O. Pipra Sakarwar, P.S. Kargahar, District-Rohtas. 13. Rameshwar Singh alias Ramesh Singh, son of late Chandrika Rai 14. Rohit Kumar, 15. Ritesh Kumar 16. Vishal Kumar, all three sons of late Rameshwar Singh. all 13 to 16 residents of Village-Sahwalia, P.O. Biso Dihari, P.S. Kargahar, District-Rohtas. 17. Sharda Rai, son of late Jang Bahadur Rai, 18. Ajay Kumar Singh, son of Sri Sharda Rai, both 17 and 18 residents of Village-Samhuta, P.O. Pipra Sakarwar, P.S. Kargahar, O.P. Sarathua, District-Rohtas -----Defendants -- ------ Opposite parties. ---------------- 2 5. 30.7.2010 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh for the petitioners. The plaintiffs are the petitioners and have preferred the present civil revision application in terms of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby they have challenged the validity of the order dated 8.6.2007, passed by the learned District Judge, Rothas, Sasaram, in Civil Misc. case No.130 of 2006 ( Ram Ashish Singh and others Vrs. Raghu Pati Rai & ors.), and their application for transfer of Title Partition Suit No.95 of 2005, currently pending in the court of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge IV, Sasaram, to the court of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge I, Sasaram, has been rejected for non-appearance of the counsel. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners. It appears from the averments made in the revision application that the present petitioners are plaintiffs in Title Partition Suit No.95 of 2005, and is currently pending in the court of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge I, Sasaram. It is further stated in this application that three other suits, namely, Title Suit No. 64 of 2002, Title Suit No. 188 of 2002, and Title Suit No. 263 of 2002, are with respect 3 to the same properties, and between the same parties, as the present suit. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed Civil Misc. Case No. 130 of 2006, before the learned District Judge with the prayer to transfer Title Partition Suit No.95 of 2005 to the court of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge I, Sasaram, so that all the four suits could be disposed of together. The same has been rejected by the learned District Judge on the ground of non-appearance of learned counsel for the plaintiffs. We do not wish to interfere with the impugned order only for the reason that there are a large number of opposite parties before us and issuance of notices to them and final disposal of this civil revision application by this Court will consume a lot of time. Therefore, this civil revision application is disposed of with the liberty to the plaintiffs to file a fresh application which shall be disposed of on merits and in accordance with law. The civil revision application is accordingly disposed of. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. )