IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.322 of 2008 Ram Dulari Kuer, wife of late Subedar Singh, resident of Village and P.O. Dahabhatta, P.S. Uchkagaon, District- Gopalganj ------ Plaintiff/Opposite Party no.1/Petitioner. Versus 1. Shail Devi @ Shail Kumari Devi, wife of Sri Shambhu Singh. 2. Shambhu Singh, son of late Yamuna Singh, both resident of Villager-Mudi Barari, P.S. Uchkagaon, District- Gopalganj ----Defendants/Opposite Parties. 3.Ashok Singh, son of Dhanesar Singh --- Defendant/Petitioner/Opposite Party 4. Amirul Haque, son of Md. Nawasif --- Defendant/opposite party/opposite party 5. Raghubir Ram, son of Hulman Ram --- Defendant/opposite party/opposite party. ---------------------------------- 5. 3.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha for opposite party no.3. The plaintiff is the applicant in this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and is directed against the order dated 24.11.2007, passed by the learned Sub- ordinate Judge IX, Gopalganj, in Misc. Case No.15 of 2004, whereby the application preferred by opposite party no.3 herein (purchaser of the suit property from opposite party nos. 1 and 2 herein), has been allowed and ex-parte judgment and decree dated 23.5.2003, has been set aside. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this civil revision application may be indicated. 2 The plaintiff (the petitioner herein) instituted the aforesaid suit with the prayer to set aside the deed of gift dated 7.8.1993, in favour of opposite party nos. 1 and 2, the daughter and Nati of the plaintiff respectively. It further appears that opposite party nos. 1 and 2 had alienated the suit property by registered deed of absolute sale in favour of opposite party no.3 herein. The suit was decreed ex- parte, and the impugned deed of gift was set aside. Opposite party no.3 herein, the purchaser, filed the aforesaid application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure which has been allowed by the impugned order. The impugned judgment and decree has been set aside for a fresh hearing and the suit has to be re-heard. Hence this civil revision application at the instance of the plaintiff. Before we proceed further, we may notice the order sheet of the present proceedings. It appears from the order dated 4.11.2010, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was dead during pendencny of the present proceedings and adjournment was granted to file a substitution application. It was thereafter placed before the Bench on 2.12.2010 and 20.10.2011, and the 3 substitution application has not so far been filed. It is thus evident that the present civil revision application can not proceed in the absence of the heir(s) and deed of representative(s) of the petitioner. We, therefore, note the submission at the Bar made by the learned counsel for opposite party no.3 herein that opposite party nos. 1 and 2 herein are the sole surviving heirs of the petitioner. In the result, the civil revisions application is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.)