IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7586 of 2011 GHURAN YADAV Versus BATAHU YADAV ----------- 6 2.5.2011 Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the prayer made in the plaint from which it is evident that the prayer has been made to declare purcha issued in favour of the petitioner in Suit No.65/2002-03 may be held void. This prayer itself shows that the purcha had been issued by the State which was the subject matter of the suit under which the petitioner is holding the property. Thus, in the suit the State was necessary party and in that event notice under section 80 of the C.P.C. was mandatory. Therefore, it was open for the petitioner to have moved application for dismissal of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., even if written statement has been rejected. It is worse to note that moving an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. under new C.P.C. is not provided. The writ petition is dismissed. AnilKrSinha ( Prakash Chandra Verma, J.)