IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.71 of 2008 ---- Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (acquisition and transfer of undertaking) Act-V of 1970 having its Head Office at Star House, C-5, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai 400041 and a Branch office along other places at Kanti K.T.P.C Barauni, Muzaffarpur and Sub- Division, Muzaffarpur, West District-Muzaffarpur. -- Plaintiff- Petitioner. Versus 1. Muneshwar Prasad son of Late Shiv Charan Gupta, Resident of Mohalla- Brahampura, P.S.- Brahmpura, District- Muzaffarpur. 2. Smt. Rubi Devi, wife of Sh. Muneshwar Prasad, Resident of Mohalla- Brahampura, P.S. Brahmpura, District- Muzaffarpur. 3. Sri Rajeshwar Prasad Shahi S/O Bindeshwari Prasad Sahi, Resident of Village- Panapur Bangla, P.S.-Maniyari, Panapura at present- Shibaipatti, Anchal- Minapur Munsifi and District- Muzaffarpur -Defendants-opposite parties. ---- For the petitioner : Mrs. Namrata Mishra, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ---- 05. 05.11.2009 I.A.No.484 of 2008 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for condoning the delay in the filing of the civil revision. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the statements made in this interlocutory application, it appears that genuine reasons have been shown which prevented the petitioner from filing the civil revision earlier. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay in the filing of the civil revision application is condoned. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner challenging order dated 12.09.2007 by which learned - 2 - Subordinate Judge IV, Muzaffarpur allowed the application filed by opposite parties no.1 and 2 for their impleadment under the provision of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Mortgage Suit No.335 of 2002. 4. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for the recovery of the amount with interest which was given as loan to the defendant-opposite party no.3 by the plaintiff-Bank for purchase of tractor, trailer and cultivators and its implements for the purpose of agricultural work, whereas defendants no.2 and 3 stood as his guarantors. In the said suit, the defendants appeared and contested, whereafter the suit proceeded. 5. It transpires that in the meantime opposite parties no.1 and 2 filed an application dated 07.07.2003 in the learned court below for being added as party-defendants on the ground that the suit property originally belonged to the wife of defendant no.1 and after her death, sons of defendant no.1 had sold the suit property to the applicants by registered deeds. 6. The learned court below has very carefully considered the entire matter in detail and allowed the said application. It is quite apparent that when the suit property did not originally belong to defendant no.1, rather it originally belonged to his late wife, whereafter defendant no.1 along with his sons inherited the said property, the said sons or their transferees were necessary parties for proper adjudication of the suit. 7. In the said circumstances, this court does not find - 3 - any illegality in the impugned order, nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned court below is directed to expedite the hearing of the suit so that it may be disposed of without any further delay. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)