IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2234 of 2007 M/S RITA SINGH, w/o Shri Rajeshwar Patel, resident of village-Gajipur, P.O. Ufraul, P.S.Desri, District-Vaishali------Plaintiff/Petitioner. Versus 1. NEETU SINGH w/o late Nitesh Kumar, D/o Dr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Mohalla-Jarhua Pokhara, P.O.& P.S.-Hajipur, Distt.-Vaishali. 2. Rajendra Prasad Singh, s/o Sri Ram Lakhan Singh, resident of Mohalla- Jarhua Pokhara, P,O. & P.S. Hajipur, Distt.-Vaishali ----- ---Defendant/Opp. Parties(Ist set) 3. Rajeshwar Patel, s/o Ramlakhan Singh,resident of village Gajipur, P.O. Ufraul, P.S.Desari, Distt.Vaishali----- ----Defendant/Opp. Party (2nd set) 4. The Western Railways through the General Manager, Church Gate, Mumbai. 5. The Chief Claim Officer, Western Railway, Church Gate, Mumbai, 6. The Oriental Bank of Commerce, Head Office, E-Block, Harsh Bhawan, Canaught Place, New Delhi. 7. The Oriental Bank of Commerce through the Branch Manager, Sreejee Chambers, Opera House, Charani Road Branch, Mumbai---- ----Defendant/Opposite Parties(3rd set) 8. The State of Maharashtra through the District Magistrate, Thane 9. The District Magistrate, Thane, Maharashtra---- ----Defendant/Opposite Parties(4th set). ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, Advocate. ----------- 6. 10.2.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1.9.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), VII, Vaishali at Hajipur in Partition Suit no.48 of 2007 whereby a petition filed on behalf of the defendant nos.6 & 7 under Order 1 Rule X(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for deleting their names from the array of the defendants has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff is the mother of Nitesh Kumar, who died in the bomb blast in train. Thereafter, the Western Railways and the State of Maharashtra have paid ex-gratia amount and the Oriental Bank of Commerce has also - 2 - paid an amount of Rs.8 lacs to defendant no.1, who happened to be the widow of the deceased who was an employee of the bank. The plaintiff-petitioner claims half of the aforesaid amount being one of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased. He submits that since the amount was paid by the bank to defendant no.1, therefore, the bank becomes a proper party. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to an unreported decision of this Court in the case of Girija Devi Vrs. Smt. Deventi Devi & anr. disposed of on 30.7.2007 wherein defendant no.2 was held, though may not be a necessary party, but a proper party in the suit as collusion of defendant no.1 with defendant no.2 was alleged in the plaint and thus, the order of court below refusing to delete the defendant no.2 from the array of defendants was upheld. However, in the present case the trial court in the impugned order, after hearing the rival submissions, has come to the conclusion that payments were received by defendant no.1, the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff-petitioner, which stands fully described in the Schedule-I of the plaint. Therefore, after parting with the amount, the bank concerned has got no subsisting interest in the Schedule-I property and further, no cause of action of the suit has specifically been alleged or any relief at all has been sought against the bank. It has further come to the conclusion from the nature of the suit that the presence of defendant nos.6 and 7 does not appear to be necessary for the adjudication of the lis which is actually between plaintiff and the - 3 - defendant no.1 and thus, has allowed the petition aforesaid filed by defendant nos.6 and 7. In Girija Devi Vrs. Smt. Deventi Devi & anr. (supra) also this Court has held that it is the discretion of the court after analysing the matter, either to retain a party in the suit or to delete it. In view of the above, I do not find any jurisdictional error or illegality in the order impugned. The Civil Revision application is dismissed. sudip ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J )