IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13122 of 2011 Sanjay Kumar Singh @ Sri Prakash Singh & Ors Versus Babunandan Singh & Ors ---------------------------------- 04. 05.09.2011 Heard the learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioners. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner against the order dated 23.05.2011 passed by Sub Judge I, Kaimur at Bhabhua in title suit no.530 of 2009 which is a partition suit whereby the learned Court below has allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the respondent no.12, Kadamberi Devi. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while passing the impugned order, the learned Court below did not consider the case of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the respondent no.12, Kadamberi Devi is not related to Babunandan Singh. However, the learned Court below found prima facie case and added her as respondent in the case. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below for arriving to that finding that the respondent no.12 prima facie appears to be the wife of Babunandan Singh considered some documents filed by her and thereafter held that she is a necessary party in the suit. This question has not been finally 2 decided and, therefore, the petitioner may prove his case in the final hearing of the suit. Admittedly, the suit is partition suit and Babunandan Singh who is respondent no.1 did not raise any objection regarding her addition as party. He also never raised any objection that she is not his wife. The plaintiffs-petitioners are raising said ground. From perusal of the impugned order as stated above, the learned Court below after appreciation of some of the evidences prima facie, found the case of the respondent no.12 to be correct. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot turn itself as an appellate court and reappraise the evidences. Moreover, the learned Court below has exercised a discretionary jurisdiction and, therefore, the learned Court below has not acted beyond the bounds of its authority. I, therefore, find no merit in this application and accordingly, this application is dismissed. Saurabh ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)