IN THE OURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.436 of 2008 1. Most. Kanti Devi, S/O late Sachchida Nand Prasad Singh. 2. Ravi Ranjan Prasad alias Ranjit Prasad 3. Ravi Sankar Kumar 4. Rajnish Kumar, all sl.no.2 to 4 are sons of late Sachchida Nand Prasad Singh. All resident of Village-Parasdiha, P.S. Nagar Nosa, District- Nalanda at present residing at Mohalla Tulsigali Rajgir, Nalanda--- Plaintiffs ---- Petitioners. Versus 1. Sita Sharan Prasad alias Sita Sharan, S/O Tulsi Mahto alias Ram Das Mahto. 2. Udit Kumar 3. Binod Kumar, sons of Sita Sharan Prasad 4. Shail Hansu Kumar minor son of Udit Kumar under guardianship of their father Udit Kumar 5. Kapildeo Prasad, S/O Tulsi Mahto alias Ram Das Mahto 6. Srawan Kumar 7. Sudhir Kumar 8. Raja Babu, all sons of Kapildeo Prasad. All resident of Village and PO Parasiha P.S. Nagarnousa (Chandi) District Nalanda at present residing at Mohalla Dhaneshwar Ghat P.O. Biharsharif, District-Nalanda --- Defendants --- Opposite Parties. -------------- 4. 30.7.2010 None appears on behalf of the parties. The plaintiffs are the petitioners. This civil revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 1.3.2008, passed in Title suit No.74 of 2005 (Kanti Devi Vs. Sita Sharan), whereby the learned Sub-ordinate Judge-I, Biharsharif, has transferred the suit to the court of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Civil Court, Hilsa, for disposal. We have perused the materials on record. It 2 appears that the plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid Title Suit No. 74 of 2005 in the court of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge I, Biharsharif. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 filed application under section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying therein that the property which is the subject matter of the suit is situate within Hilsa Sub-division, district Biharsharif, and therefore the suit may be transferred. The application has been allowed, and the suit has been directed to be transferred to the court of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Civil Court, Hilsa. We entirely agree with the impugned order. The learned Sub-ordinate Judge has stated in the impugned order that the property in question is situate within the Sub- division of Hilsa. Therefore, the court at Hilsa has the territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. Secondly, the courts at Hilsa and Biharsharif are within the Sessions Division of Biharsharif. In the result, we do not find any merit in this application. It is accordingly rejected. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. )