IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16886 of 2011 Rajendra Prasad Versus Jay Rani Sinha ---------------------------------- O R D E R 11. 15.12.2011 1. Heard the learned senior counsel Mr. T.N. Maitin on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel Mr. Shree Nandan Prasad Singh on behalf of the respondent. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant 3rd party petitioner against the order dated 27.8.2008 passed by Sub Judge – 2nd Munger in Title Suit No. 184 of 1987 in final decree proceeding. 3. The learned senior counsel Mr. Maitin submitted that the learned court below has wrongly recalled the earlier orders dated 6.10.2007 and 13.11.2007 which could not have been recalled by the court below. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that without hearing the respondents the said order has been passed and, therefore, the learned court below only recalled the orders and only opportunity of being heard has been granted by the court below. 5. From perusal of the orders which have been recalled it appears that the defendant No. 18 was not 2 heard by the court below while passing the orders and, therefore, the defendant No.18 filed application for recall of the order. After considering the facts and circumstances and the submission of the parties the court below found that it is necessary to hear the defendant No.18 also and therefore, recalled the said orders and granted opportunity to the defendant No.18. In such view of the matter no rights of the parties have been decided by the court below. Admittedly, the orders were passed without hearing the defendant No.18. Finding this the court below has recalled the order and opportunity has been granted to the defendant No.18 for being heard. Further it appears that the petitioner by filing this application before this court got the proceedings withheld for four years. The petitioner could have again prayed the said relief which were granted by the orders which were recalled by the impugned order but instead of doing so he has approached this court. 6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the order impugned cannot be interfered with in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)