IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13610 of 2011 Raj Kumar Singh Versus Jagarnath Singh & Ors. ----------- 02. 24.08.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner against the order dated 10.01.2011 passed by Subordinate Judge Vth Patna City in Title Suit No.191 of 1999 whereby the learned Court below substituted the respondent No.2, Prabha Devi in place of Daulati Devi, defendant No.1 in the suit. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the plaintiff filed the suit for partition. Daulati Devi was defendant No.1. The present respondent No.2, Prabha Devi, filed the application for being substituted in place of Daulati Devi on the ground that she is legal representatives of Daulati Devi because a Will has already been executed in her favour by deceased Daulati Devi. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Court below has allowed the application of Prabha Devi and she - 2 - has been substituted. In such view of the matter, it cannot be said that the learned Court below has no jurisdiction to substitute the respondent No.2. Moreover by the impugned order, only substitution has been allowed and merely because substitution has been allowed, it cannot be said that the right title and interest of Daulati Devi passed on Prabha Devi, this is a matter to be considered finally. Therefore, I find no merit in this application as such it is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)