IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.559 of 2007 1. Mahadeo Yadav son of Late Mangal Mahto @ Mangal Gope @ Mangal Yadav. 2. Bindeshwari Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav 3. Kapildeo Yadav 4. Nand Kishore Yadav Petitioner no.2 to 4 are sons of Sri Mahadeo Yadav. 5. Smt. Bidya Devi wife of Bindeshwari Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav 6. Smt. Kalawati Devi wife of Nand Kishore Yadav. 7. Smt. Dropadi Devi wife of Kapildeo Yadav. All are residents of village Abagil, P.O. Paharpur, P.S. Medani, Chowki, Sub-Division and District Lakhisarai. ……….Defendants-Petitioners. Versus 1. Kamleshwari Yadav son of Sri Mahadeo Yadav, resident of Abagil, P.O. Paharpur, P.S. Medani Chowki, Sub- Division and District Lakhisarai. …..Plaintiff-Opposite party 1st set. 2. Smt. Uma Devi wife of Satish Yadav, resident of village Naulakha, P.O. Safiya Sarai, District Munger. 3. Smt. Sharda Devi wife of Ram Nandan Yadav, resident of village Jaganshedpur, P.O. Akbarpur, P.S. Malthani, District Begusarai. 4. Sunita Devi wife of Umesh Yadav resident of village Bangama Tola-Thai Pokhar, P.O. Ramcharitar Maidan, P.S. Harpur, Sub-Division Kharagpur, District Munger. 5. Kundan Kumar 6. Gunjan Kumar Both are minor sons of Bindeshwari Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav under the guardianship of their father Bindeshwari Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav. 7. Manish Kumar 8. Rabish Kumar, Both are minor sons of Nand Kishore Yadav under the guardianship of their father Nand Kishore Yadav. 9. Brij Kishore Kumar 10. Gunjan Kumar, Both are minor sons of Kapildeo Yadav, under guardianship of their father Kapil Deo Yadav. Opposite party no.5 to 10 are resident of village Abagil, P.O. Paharpur, P.S. Medanichaki, Sub-Division and District Lakhisarai. ……Defendants-Opposite parties 2nd set. For the petitioners : Mr. Deepak Sahay Jamuar, Advocate. For the opposite parties: None. ----------- 2 03/ 05.10.2009 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioners. This civil revision has been filed by defendants- petitioners challenging order dated 25.01.2007 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-II, Lakhisarai, allowed the application of plaintiff-opposite party 1st set and directed the defendants- petitioners to adduce their evidence first in Partition Suit No.42 of 1997. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party 1st set for partition of the suit land. The defendants appeared in the suit and contested the claim of the plaintiff raising an objection that there was a previous partition and hence there was no occasion for the instant partition suit. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances the learned court below was quite justified in directing the defendants to adduce their evidence first. This court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )