IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No. 137 of 2007 Shashi Nath Singh son of late Saryug Singh, resident of village Sultanpur Mathura Katiya, P.O. Madhura, P.S. Biddupur, District Vaishali. ……..Defendant-Petitioner Versus 1. Upendra Singh son of late Rameshwar Singh 2. Umesh Singh son of late Sahawan Singh 3. Arvind Kumar Singh 4. Ashok Kumar Singh 5. Subodh Singh, all sons of late Babulal Singh 6. Mithilesh Kumar Singh 7. Ram Naresh Singh 8. Raghunath Singh 9. Sadhu Sharan Singh, all sons of late Yogendra Singh, all residents of village Sultanpur Mathura Katiya, P.O. Madhura, P.S. Biddupur, District Vaishali ……. …..Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties. 10. Darshan Rai 11. Rajvallabh Rai 12. Suresh Rai, all sons of Bikau Rai 13. Lalo Devi daughter of late Maidani Singh wife of Raghuvansh Singh 14. Pramila Kuer widow of late Vishundeo Singh 15. Ramila Kumari daughter of late Vishundeo Singh 16. Pappu Singh son of late Vishundeo Singh 17. Santosh Kumar 18. Pankaj Kumar, both minor sons of late Vishundeo Singh under the guardianship of their mother O.P. No.14 19. Logar Singh @ Ashok Singh S/o Late Jitu Singh 20. Sharda Kuer wife of late Ghutru Singh 21. Rajballan Singh 22. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, both sons of late Ghutru Singh 23. Dharam Sheela Devi 24. Rita Devi, both daughters of late Ghutru Singh, all residents of village Sultanpur Mathura Katiya, P.O. Madhura, P.S. Biddupur, District Vaishali… ………..…Defendants-Opposite Parties. For the petitioner : M/s Naresh Chandra Verma and Arun Kumar Lal, Advocates. For the Opp.Parties : None. ----------- 2 02/ 02.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil revision has been filed by one of the defendants challenging order dated 23.12.2006 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-VIII, Hajipur, Vaishali rejected the petition filed by the defendant-petitioner for abatement of Title Suit No.391 of 2003 under the provision of section 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity). From the arguments as well as the materials on record, specially the impugned order of the learned court below, it transpires that after perusing the pleadings of the parties, specially the written statement of the defendants the learned court below has come to the specific conclusion that the suit land is a homestead land not connected with agriculture in a portion of which the defendants are residing as per the claim of the defendants themselves. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the said provision of the Act would not be applicable to the suit out of which the civil revision has arisen. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order, nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J)