IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.921 of 2008 JAGDISH DUBEY Versus RAMKANT DUBEY @ RAMA KANT DUBE ----------- 2 3.7.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 14.5.2008 whereby and whereunder the application filed by him on 17.3.2008 for impleading plaintiff no.4 Bishwanth Dubey as defendant to the suit by way of his transposition has been rejected. The counsel for the petitioner with reference to the impugned order has cited judgments in the case of Sm. Saila Bala Dassi vs Nirmala Sundari Dassi & another reported in AIR 1958 SC 394, Krishna Aiyar vs Subrahmania Aiyar & another reported in 1924 Madras 648, Vikarma Singh & others vs Smt Parbati Kunwar & another, reported in 1961 Allahabad 97 and Mir Sardar Ali Khan & others vs. Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition (Industries) reported in AIR 1973 AP 298 to contend that such transposition can be made at any stage of the suit as only requirement of law in such a case is that the suit must remain pending. From perusal of the impugned order, it is absolutely clear that plaintiff no.4 came to be transposed as a plaintiff - 2 - by filing application in view of the order dated 7.4.1976 in the suit filed in the year l971 in presence of the petitioner. It has also been recorded that the petitioner never objected to such transposition of Biswanath Dubey as plaintiff no.4 in the period of next 31 years and in fact even after his deposition of plaintiff no.3 on 25.4.2005 wherein he had deposed in favour of Biswanath Dubey no adverse stand was found in the stand of two persons. Since all these findings of fact has been recorded by the court below while exercising its jurisdiction by refusing the prayer, the same can not be interfered by this Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure on a simple proposition that suit is of the year 1971 and is still awaiting disposal on account of issues of technicality being raised by the plaintiff-petitioner. If the petitioner had really a grievance against the transposition of plaintiff no.4, such cause of action had arisen way back in the year 1976. He however having accepted that order transposing Bishwanath Dubey plaintiff no.4 way back in 1976 can not be allowed now to raise that question after a gap of 31 years. Consequently, the aforesaid decisions referred to by the - 3 - counsel for the petitioner will have no application in the facts and circumstances of the case. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this application and the civil revision application is accordingly dismissed. shahid (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)