IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.165 of 2009 ***** BINDA DEVI, W/o Baleshwar Verma, R/o Village – Gangrahour Mohanpur, P.S. Bakhari, Distt. – Begusarai……( Plaintiff) / Petitioner Versus 1. ANAND MAHTO , 2. Kundan Mahto, 3. Pappu Mahto, all sons of Late Gajendra Mahto and residents of Village Goha, P.S. Hasanpur, Distt. Samastipur …………………Defendant 1st Set / O.P.1st Set 4. Kiran Kumari Devi, D/o Ram Krishna Mahto, 5. Punam Devi, D/o Ram Krishna Mahto, O.P. 4 & 5 are residents of Village – Maldah, P.S. Hasanpur, Distt. Samastipur…………………Defendant 2nd Set / O.P.2nd Set, 6. Sachidanand Mahto, S/o late Ram Dutta Mahto, 7. Binod Kumar Mahto, S/o Sachidanand Mahto, 8. Chandra Kala Devi, D/o Late Ram Dutta Mahto, 9. Gulab Devi, D/o Late Ram Dutta Mahto, O.P. Nos. 8 & 9 are residents of Village Pusho, P.S. Hasanpur, Distt. Samastipur…………………Defendant 3rd Set /O.P. 3rd Set, 10. Bimlendra Prasad Mahto, S/o Late Tarni Prasad Mahto, 11. Tuna Devi, D/o Bachhan Paswan, 12. Rasbati Devi, W/o Sitaram Paswan, O.P. Nos. 10 to 12 are residents of Village Goha, P.S. Hasanpur, Distt. – Samastipur………………. Defendant 4th Set /O.P. 4th Set, 13. Arun Mahto, S/o Bhagwan Mahto, 14. Md. Salam, S/o Muslim, 15. Md. Bashir, S/o Maulu, 16. Ram Balak Yadav, S/o Mushahar Yadav, 17. Tarni Sah, S/o Lakhan Sah, O.P. Nos. 13 to 17 are residents of Village Goha, P.O. Mauji, P.S. Hasanpur, Distt. – Samastipur…………………Defendant 5th Set /O.P. 5th Set, 18. Ram Bihari Mahto, S/o Late Chaturbhuj Mahto, 19. Subodh Kumar Mahto, 20. Manoj Kumar Mahto, 21. Saroj Kumar Mahto and - 2 - 22. Sanjay Kumar Mahto, all O.P.Nos. 19 to 22 are sons of Ram Bihari Mahto, residents of Village Bidulia, P.S. Khodabandpur, Distt. – Begusarai … Plaintiffs / O.P. 6th Set. ----------- 4. 09.02.2009. Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh No. 2, Advocate appears and seeks permission to recuse himself out of this case. Permission is accorded. Heard Mr. Uma Shankar Singh No. 2, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is aggrieved by part of the order dated 5.1.2009, whereby the court below has observed that the question of compromise would be gone into at the stage of final hearing of the suit in the interest of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a joint petition for compromise has been filed by the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 11 and, thus, that ought to have been disposed of immediately by the trial court in terms of Order XV, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In a suit for partition, only the plaintiff – defendant no. 1 and the defendant no. 11 have entered into the compromise. Since all parties to partition suit have not accepted the compromise, thus, it appears that the court below has decided to consider the same at the time of final - 3 - hearing of the case. In view of the above, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. As a result, the Civil Revision is dismissed. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )