IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.124 of 2007 ----- 1. Ram Nath Pandit 2. Birendra Pandit Both sons of Nathuni Pandit. Residents of Village-Pilkhi, P.O.-Masrakh, P.S.Mashrakh, District- Saran. -- Defendants-Petitioners. Versus 1. Sheoji Pandit, son of Khurchal Pandit. 2. Sheo Kumari Devi, wife of Sheoji Pandit. Residents of Village-Pilkhi, P.O.-Masrakh, P.S.Mashrakh, District-Saran. -- Intervenors-Opposite Party 1st Set. 3. Lakshman Pandit alias Lachchuman Pandit, son of Raja Pandit, resident of village-Pilkhi, P.O. Masrakh, P.S. Mashrak, District- Saran. -- Plaintiff- Opposite Party 2nd Set. ----- For the petitioners : Mr. Nagendra Rai, Advocate For the opposite parties : None. ----- 03. 23.06.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by both the defendants- petitioners challenging order dated 04.11.2006 by which the learned Munsif IV, Chapra allowed the petition of opposite parties no.1 and 2 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and added them as co-plaintiffs in Title Suit No.24 of 1992. 3. The aforesaid title suit was originally filed by the sole plaintiff Raja Pandit for setting aside a deed of gift dated 08.12.1999 executed by him in favour of the defendants-petitioners with respect to Schedule I of the plaint and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. It transpires that during pendency of the suit, the said sole plaintiff Raja Pandit died and in his place his widow Tetri and his son Lakshman Pandit ( opposite party no.3) were substituted as - 2 - plaintiffs, but on 07.05.2005 Tetri also died, whereafter opposite party no.1 filed an application for his substitution on 23.06.2005 in place of Tetri as her agnate. The said petition was clearly not legal and proper as opposite party no.1 cannot legally be an heir of Tetri being an agnate in presence of her son Lakshman Pandit and hence the said petition was rejected on 09.08.2005. 5. Subsequently on 21.12.2005, opposite party nos. 1 and 2 filed an application for adding them as co-plaintiffs under the provision of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that Lakshman Pandit was traceless since May, 1992 and hence in the said circumstances, opposite party no.1, who is agnate, has to be added as co-plaintiff. So far opposite party no.2 is concerned, it was claimed that Tetri has executed a sale deed in her favour with respect to the suit land on 13.09.1997 and hence she is also to be added as co-plaintiff specially in view of the fact that Tetri had died and Lakshman Pandit , another plaintiff, is traceless since 1992. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned court below was quite justified in allowing the application of opposite party nos. 1 and 2, especially when there was no objection by the co-plaintiffs. 6. This court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below, nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)