CRP 65/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The petitioners, who claim to be the heirs of Jagdeo Mahato, the judgmen t debtor in Title Suit No.45/1987, by the present petition has challenged the or der dated 01.12.2008 passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Kamrup at Guwahati in M isc.(J) Case No.506/2008, arising out of Title Execution Case No.04/1997, whereb y and whereunder an application filed by the present respondent under Section 15 1/152 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the decree passed in the aforesaid suit has been allowed. I have heard Mr. C.K.S. Baruah, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Mr. C.K.S. Baruah, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners at the outset has submitted that during pendency of the petition the petitioner No.1 died lea ving behind the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 as her legal heirs. Mr. Baruah, learned S r. counsel therefore, prays for striking out the name of petitioner No.1 from th e list of petitioners. Prayer being not opposed is allowed. Mr. Sarma Baruah, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners submits that t he order dated 01.12.2008 passed by the learned Munsiff No.2 in Misc.(J) Case No .506/2008 requires interference on two grounds, namely, (i) the said Court has n o jurisdiction to amend the decree passed in Title Suit No.45/1987, the decree h aving been passed by the learned Munsiff No.4, Guwahati and (ii) the said Misc. case has been decided by the aforesaid order dated 01.12.2008 in the absence of the legal heirs of Jagdeo Mahato, though in the application filed the respondent has impleaded one Smt. Anita Mahato and Smt. Sunita Mahato claiming to be the l egal heirs of Jagdeo Mahati, one of the judgment debtor, though according to the petitioners they are not the legal heirs. Mr. Sarma Baruah, therefore, submits that the order dated 01.12.2008 be set aside. Mr. Ali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand has disputed the claim of the petitioners that they are the legal heirs of Jagde o Mahato. According to Mr. Ali, Smt. Anita Mahato and Smt. Sunita Mahato are the legal heirs of Jagdeo Mahato, who were made opposite parties in Misc.(J) Case N o.506/2008 and on whom the notices were duly served and the impugned order dated 01.12.2008 was passed after giving the opportunity to the legal heirs of Jagdeo Mahato to contest the said proceeding. It has also been submitted by Mr. Ali th at in view of the fact that at the relevant point of time since nobody was poste d as Munsiff No.4, Kamrup at Guwahati, the application had to be filed in the Co urt of learned District Judge, who keeping in view the fact that no officer was posted as Munsiff No.4, assigned the matter to the Court of the learned Munsiff No.2 for disposal and accordingly the said application seeking amendment of the decree passed in Title Suit No.45/1987 has been disposed of vide order dated 01. 12.2008. Mr. Ali further submits that the question as to whether the petitioners are the legal heirs of Jagdeo Mahato cannot be determined in the present procee ding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for which the petitioners ha ve to approach the Court below for determination. It appears from the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel ap pearing for the parties that there is a dispute between the parties as to whethe r the petitioners are the legal heirs of Jagdeo Mahato. The said dispute can be resolved by the learned Court below, who has passed the impugned order dated 01. 12.2008. If the present petitioners are the legal heirs of Jagdeo Mahato, one of the judgment debtor of Title Suit No.45/1987, they have the right to contest th e proceeding filed under Section 151/152/114 of the CPC, who have admittedly not been heard, as in the said proceeding (Misc.(J) Case No.506/2008), 2(two) other persons, namely, Smt. Anita Mahato and Smt. Sunita Mahato were made parties and not the present petitioners. That being the position, the present petition is disposed of with a dire ction to the learned Munsiff No.2, Kamrup at Guwahati to decide the dispute as t o whether Smt. Anita Mahato and Smt. Sunita Mahato are the legal heirs of Jagdeo Mahato and if it is found that they are the legal heirs, they shall be heard af resh in the petition filed by the present respondent, which has been registered as Misc.(J) Case No.506/2008 and fresh order shall be passed. While doing so, th e learned Munsiff No.2 shall also decide its jurisdiction to entertain such appl ication seeking amendment of the decree passed in Title Suit No.45/1987. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Munsiff No.2, Guwa hati on 10.01.2011. The learned Munsiff shall decide the said proceeding within 45 days thereafter. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of.