IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.126 of 2008 Dhananjay Kumar Singh son of late Ram Nath Singh, resident of village Salaahpur, P.O. Deoria Kothi, P.S. Deoria, Sub Division & Munsifi Muzaffarpur (West), District Muzaffarpur. …..Defendant No.2-Petitiner Versus 1. Jagat Narayan Singh, son of late Bindeshwari Singh, Power of Attorney Holder of (i) Sheela Devi (ii) Anakful Devi (iii) Shail Dei and (iv) Lalmuni Devi resident of village Gopalpur, P.O. Pratap Pur, P.S. Karja, Sub Division & Munsifi Muzaffarpur (West), District Muzaffarpur. ……Plaintiff-Opposite party no.1 2. Sarjug Singh son of late Chengan Singh 3. Mritunjay Singh, son of late Ram Nath Singh 4. Anil Kumar Singh son of Saryug Singh 5. Avinash Singh son of Saryug Singh 6. Vikash Kumar Singh, son of Saryug Singh All are resident of village Salaahpur, P.O. Deoria Kothi, P.S. Deoria, Sub Division & Munsifi Muzaffarpur (West), District Muzaffarpur. ……Defendant nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6-Opposite party nos.2 to 6. For the petitioner : Mr. Amod Kumar, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 02/ 12.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant no.2-petitioner challenging order dated 03.11.2007 by which learned Subordinate Judge-V, Muzaffarpur allowed the plaintiffs to sign the plaint of Partition Suit No.450 of 2004 which was filed by their Attorney on the basis of power given by them. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid suit was filed by opposite party no.1 on behalf of four daughters of Late Kamal Singh claiming to be their Power of Attorney holder, but the said claim was challenged by the 2 defendant no.2-petitioner raising the issue of maintainability of the suit and the genuineness of the said Power of Attorney. It is also claimed by the petitioner that only at the stage of evidence the said application was filed merely to fill up the lacuna in the case of the plaintiff. 4. The learned court below has very carefully considered the said matter and has found that the court cannot legally refuse the prayer of the persons, on whose behalf the plaint was filed by the Attorney, to sign the plaint. It was also found that when the suit was filed by the Attorney on behalf of the said ladies, it were in fact the said ladies who had filed the suit and hence their application was quite legal and justified. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)