IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12715 of 2010 1. PRITHVI YADAV S/O LATE RAMDEO YADAV R/O MOHALLA- BARKI DELHA PARAIYA ROAD, P.O. & P.S.- DELHA, DISTT.- GAYA 2. DHARAMRAJ YADAV S/O LATE RAMDEO YADAV R/O MOHALLA- BARKI DELHA PARAIYA ROAD, P.O. & P.S.- DELHA, DISTT.- GAYA 3. DURGA KUMAR YADAV S/O LATE RAMDEO YADAV R/O MOHALLA- BARKI DELHA PARAIYA ROAD, P.O. & P.S.- DELHA, DISTT.- GAYA 4. SANTOSH KUMAR YADAV S/O LATE RAMDEO YADAV R/O MOHALLA- BARKI DELHA PARAIYA ROAD, P.O. & P.S.- DELHA, DISTT.- GAYA 5. SANJAY KUMAR YADAV S/O LATE RAMDEO YADAV R/O MOHALLA- BARKI DELHA PARAIYA ROAD, P.O. & P.S.- DELHA, DISTT.- GAYA 6. AJAY KUMAR YADAV S/O LATE RAMDEO YADAV R/O MOHALLA- BARKI DELHA PARAIYA ROAD, P.O. & P.S.- DELHA, DISTT.- GAYA Versus 1. MEENA DEVI D/O SANT SHARAN RAM R/O MOHALLA- MAIN ROAD, P.O. & P.S. AND TOWN- GIRIDIH, SO-CALLED WIDOW OF LATE PRABHAT KUMAR, R/O MOHALLA- NAI GODOWN LANE, P.S. KOTWALI, P.O. - GAYA, R.S. DISTT.- GAYA 2. RAJESH KUMAR S/O SHRI JANAK PRASAD YADAV R/O MOHALLA- JARKI DELHA, P.O. & P.S.- DELHA, DISTT.- GAYA 3. JANAK PRASAD YADAV, SON OF JAGDEO YADAV 4. SMT. ISHWARI DEVI W/O JANAK PD. YADAV R/O MOHALLA- JARKI DELHA, P.O. & P.S.- DELHA, DISTT.- GAYA 5. RANJAN KUMAR @ RAJU S/O JANAK PD. YADAV R/O MOHALLA- JARKI DELHA, P.O. & P.S.- DELHA, DISTT.- GAYA 6. RAJEEV KUMAR S/O JANAK PD. YADAV R/O MOHALLA- JARKI DELHA, P.O. & P.S.- DELHA, DISTT.- GAYA 7. MANJU DEVI W/O NOT KNOWN, D/O JANAK PD. YADAV R/O MOHALLA- SANA VED DELHA, P.O. & P.S.- DELHA, DISTT.- GAYA 8. SMT. ANJU KUMARI W/O MAHESHWAR PD., D/O JANAK PD. YADAV R/O VILL.- NAWADIH (KARI), DISTT.- KODERMA ----------- 04. 13.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The submission on behalf of the petitioners that respondent no.1 was not the lawful wedded wife of one Prabhat Rai, has been decided in another proceeding has adequately been considered noticing 2 that respondent no.1 was not a party in those proceedings and the evidentiary value of the judgment for the same was adequately to be considered at the time of decision of the Suit. By the impugned order the interest of the petitioner appears to have been adequately protected while permitting respondent no.1 to add as party defendant. The Court finds no error. The application is dismissed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)