IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12759 of 2010 1. RAM NARESH RAI S/O LATE CHALITAR RAI R/O VILL JAWAHI, P.S.SURSAND, P.O.RADHAUR, DISTT-SITAMARHI Versus 1. RAM PUKARI DEVI @ KARIA DEVI W/O JAGESHWAR RAI R/O VILL BISANPUR, P.S.PARIHAR, DISTT-SITAMARHI 2. RAM KUMAR JHA S/O LATE RAJENDRA JHA R/O VILL JAWAHI, P.S.SURSAND, DISTT-SITAMARHI 3. RAJ KISHORE RAI S/O NOT KNOWN R/O VILL KUSAIL, P.S.PUPRI, DISTT-SITAMARHI 4. BIRENDRA RAI S/O RAJ KISHORE RAI R/O VILL KUSAIL, P.S.PUPRI, DISTT-SITAMARHI 5. RANI DEVI D/O RAJ KISHORE RAI R/O VILL KUSAIL, P.S.PUPRI, DISTT-SITAMARHI 6. SUDHIR RAI S/O RAM NARESH RAI R/O VILL JAWAHI, P.S.SURSAND, DISTT-SITAMARHI 7. RAM NIWAS RAI S/O RAM NARESH RAI R/O VILL JAWAHI, P.S.SURSAND, DISTT-SITAMARHI ----------- 2/ 07/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondent No.1. The petitioner is the defendant aggrieved by the order dated 7.6.2010 bringing on record the heirs of deceased defendant No.2 on an application for substitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the deceased had no progeny and Ram Pukari was not his descendent. The trial court has wrongly allowed the prayer without a proper determination under Order-22, Rule-V C.P.C. The impugned order states “At this stage there is nothing on the record to disbelieve the version of the petitioner”. It is more than apparent from these lines that the determination done by the court was not a 2 conclusive determination under Order-22, Rule-V C.P.C., but only with regard to the application preferred for substitution claiming to be a descendent. If the petitioner has objected to the status of Respondent No.1, it is more than apparent that the objection is yet to be determined in accordance with law as observed by the trial court itself in the impugned order from the extract quoted above, in an application preferred by the aggrieved. The writ application stands disposed in the aforesaid terms. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)