IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.497 of 2007 1. Sri Deo Prasad Singh, son of late Sri Narayan Singh 2. Sri Suresh Prasad Singh, son of Deo Prasad Singh Both residents of village Adhpa, P.S. Janipur (Phulwarisharif), District Patna. …..Plaintiff-Petitioner. Versus 1. Sri Rajendra Singh 2. Sri Balmukund Singh Both sons of late Sri Narayan Singh 3. Sri Sushil Singh 4. Sri Sunil Singh Both sons of Rajendra Singh 5. Sri Rakesh Prasad Singh 6. Sri Pappu Singh Both sons of Balmukund Singh All residents of village Adhpa, P.O. Shorampur, P.S. Janipur, District Patna. 7. Smt. Anita Devi alias Bunda Devi Wife of Rai Ravi Ranjan Singh @ Lala, resident of village Shekhpura, P.S. Shorampur, P.S. Poonpoon, District Patna. ….Defendants-Opposite Parties ----- For the Petitioners : M/s Ramesh Singh and Arvind Kumar, Advocates. For Opp. Parties : None. ------- 02/ 27.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by plaintiffs- petitioners challenging order dated 08.02.2007, by which the learned Subordinate Judge IV, Patna substituted the name of Sushila Devi in place of deceased defendant no.2 Shiv Prasad Singh as his widow and refused to substitute the name of Indumati Devi whom the plaintiffs claimed to be the widow of defendant no.2 in Title Suit No. 288 of 2004. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiffs-petitioners for partition of the suit properties and in the said suit the defendants 2 had appeared. However, during the pendency of the suit defendant no.2 Shiv Prasad Singh died. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the plaintiffs filed an application dated 21.03.2005 under the provision of Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the trial court for substituting the widow and daughter of defendant no.2 in his place. The plaintiffs claimed Indumati Devi as widow of defendant no.2 and Anita Devi alias Bunda Devi as his daughter. 5. The said claim of the plaintiffs had been contested by defendant no.1, who filed a rejoinder stating that defendant no.2 died leaving behind a widow, namely, Sushila Devi and a daughter named Anita Devi alias Bunda Devi, whereas, Indumati Devi as claimed by the plaintiffs was not the widow of defendant no.2. 6. In the said circumstances, an enquiry was held in the matter in which evidence were led on behalf of both the parties and after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the impugned order was passed by the learned court below on 08.02.2007, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 7. It is quite apparent that the plaintiffs were unable to produce Indumati Devi as their witness to prove that she was the widow of defendant no.2. On the other hand, admittedly Anita Devi alias Bunda Devi was daughter of defendant no.2 and she came to the court to depose as D.W.3 stating that Sushila Devi was her step mother and was the widow of defendant no.2. The said Anita Devi alias Bunda Devi also filed her written statement stating therein that 3 her step mother was Sushila Devi and not Indumati Devi. This was also proved by documentary evidence including the voter identity card (Ext. A), whereas, there was no material at all to show that defendant no.2 left any widow named Indumati Devi. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )