IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.674 of 2009 DAYA SHANKAR CHOUBEY & ANR Versus MIRA DEVI ----------- 3. 13.5.2009 Heard on the limitation petition as also on the main revision petition. The petitioners were the substituted heirs in Title Suit No. 125 of 1995 which was filed by their mother Sonamati Devi for seeking relief of setting aside the deed of gift dated 26.6.1995 said to have been executed in favour of solitary defendant Smt. Mira Devi. Evidence was taken during the hearing of the suit. The learned District Judge, Kaimur, who heard the appeal, remanded part of the suit back for deciding the issue of adoption of the one of the heirs Daya Shankar Chaubey by the parents of the petitioners. That issue was recast and evidence was taken but during the trial on that particular issue the petitioners absented from adducing any evidence. The petitioners’ plea is that they were residing at Patiyala in Punjab and on 2 account of death of their father they came to their village and on enquiry they came to learn that the trial of the suit has been concluded without giving an opportunity of leading evidence to the petitioners. The petitioners filed a petition and that petition was dismissed by order dated 17.6.2008. The petitioners filed the revision petition which was intervened by a period of limitation of about a year and, as such, they filed I.A. No. 2667 of 2009. As may appear from the above statements of facts the petitioners were the substituted legal representatives and being the real son and daughter of their parents, i.e., Sonamati Devi and Raj Kishore Chaubey they cannot claim the status of an adopted son or daughter. A real son who was elder to every child of the couple cannot be allowed to set up a plea as has been set up by the petitioners in their petition for condoning the limitation as also in their petition which was placed before the trial Judge for granting permission to the petitioners for adducing evidence. Not only the petition 3 appears time barred but on merit also I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order as there appears no jurisdictional error or material irregularity. Both the limitation petition as also the revision petition are dismissed but without any order as to cost. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)