IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1267 of 2008 DINESH SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 18.8.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite party. In the opinion of this Court when similar prayer of the petitioner was already rejected by the court below on the earlier occasion as recorded in the impugned orders which was also allowed to become final, this Court would not encourage the petitioner to file this Civil Revision application against a similar order passed on a subsequent third petition of the petitioner. Another aspect of the matter pressed before this Court as to whether the petitioner alone would be liable to pay amount under impugned decree has to be infact viewed from the angle that it was the petitioner who is said to be responsible in getting cattle of the decree holder seized by police and subsequently such cattle was found to be dead putting the decree holder to a substantial loss. If the court below therefore, has passed decree simultaneous jointly and severally - 2 - against all the defendants including the petitioner, no procedural error can be said to have been committed by the Court below in accepting the plea of the decree holder in choosing the petitioner for satisfying the money decree dated 02.03.1996 specially when it has clearly observed in the impugned order that it would be open for the petitioner to claim proportionate refund of amount from other judgment debtors. . Thus viewed from either of the aforesaid angles, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Accordingly, this Civil Revision application being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. shahid (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)