IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.866 of 2007 PRABHA KUMARI, D/O SRI RADHAKATN CHOUDHAY AND WIFE OF SRI SAKET THAKUR, R/O MOHALLA – GACHHI TOLA, WARD NO. 4, BEGUSARAI, P.S. – TOWN, DISTT. – BEGUSARAI ………………………. PLAINTIFF / PETITIONER Versus 1. ARUN KUMAR AMBASTHA, S/O LATE MAHESHWER PRASAD, 2. SMT. SHASHI PRABHA PRABHA, WIFE OF SRI ARUN KUMAR AMBASTHA, AND 3. SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA, SON OF TRIBHUWAN KISHORE PRASAD, ALL RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA - GACHHI TOLA, WARD NO. 4, UNDER BEGUSARAI, MUNICIPALITY, P.S. & DISTT. – BEGUSARAI …… DEFENDANT / OPP. PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Dr. Amrendra Kumar and Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocates. ---------- 2. 14.12.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Plaintiff-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2007 passed by the 1st Munsif, Begusarai in Title Suit No. 64 of 2003, whereby he has rejected the plaintiff’s application for expunging the name of the intervener defendant, Ram Ratan Singh from the array of defendants without substituting his legal representatives. Learned counsel for the plaintiff – petitioner submitted that the plaintiff had sought relief against the defendants no. 1 to 3 only and not against the intervener defendant, therefore, he was not a necessary party. In that view of the matter, the court below ought not have 2 rejected the prayer of the plaintiff for expunging the name of intervener defendant, Ram Ratan Singh without substituting his legal representatives. It is submitted that since he was not a necessary party, therefore, there was no question of substituting his legal representatives. The court below concerned had rejected the prayer of the plaintiff on the ground that on 23.11.2005 itself upon intervention of defendant no. 4, order was passed and he was impleaded as a party defendant in the suit. That order had become final and thereafter defendant no. 4 had died. In that view of the matter, the court below had directed the plaintiff to take steps for substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant no. 4, Ram Ratan Singh. Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner and after considering the materials on record, I do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the concerned court in the impugned order dated 28.02.2007 as the aforesaid Ram Ratan Singh’s petition had earlier been allowed and he had already been impleaded as a party defendant in the suit and he having died subsequently, the court concerned 3 had rightly directed the plaintiff to substitute his legal representatives. As a result, this Civil Revision fails and the same is dismissed. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )