IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11202 of 2011 Sukh Lal Mahto & Ors Versus Mala Kumari & Ors ----------- 02. 14.07.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. This writ application has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 16.03.2011 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Samastipur in Claim Case No.76 of 2009 whereby the learned Court below refused to add the petitioner no.1 as party in the claim case filed by the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1, Shobha Devi filed the claim application under the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation on account of death of her husband, Dinesh Mahto. Shobha Devi claimed to be the second wife. In the claim application, the minor sons of the deceased are also claimant. Subsequently, two intervention applications were filed. One on behalf of the in-laws of the deceased and the other on behalf of brothers of the deceased and also the minor son from the first wife of the deceased. The learned Court below found that the in-laws are not entitled for compensation and, therefore, their application has been rejected. The learned Court below also found that the brothers are also not entitled to receive compensation and, therefore, their claim was also rejected for being added as party. However, the minor son, Raja has been added as 2 claimant in the claim case. The brothers and the in-laws are not challenging the impugned order. The writ application has been filed by the father-in-law of the deceased on the ground that he is in fact, the guardian of the minor sons and, therefore, he should be added as party. This is not the fact apparent from the impugned order. For the first time, in this writ application this question is being raised. It further appears that the minor sons who are claimants have also been added as petitioner in the writ application. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no.1, Shobha Devi is in fact a fictitious lady and she is not the second wife and in fact her name is Mala Kumari. So far this question is concerned, it cannot be decided in a writ jurisdiction. It appears that all the minor sons are the claimants. Whether the petitioner no.1, Shukh Lal Mahto is guardian of the minor or the respondent no.1 is the guardian of the minor and who is representing the minor sons of the deceased is a question of fact which can not be decided in this application. Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ application. Therefore, it is dismissed. Saurabh ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)