IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9286 of 2011 MD.MUMTAJ ALAM & ANR Versus MD.AYUB ALAM & ORS ----------- 2. 22.06.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. This writ application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 15.4.2011 passed by the learned Sub Judge – VII, Nalanda, Biharsharif in Title suit No. 47 of 1989 whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. filed by the respondent No.1 has been allowed by the court below and he has been added as sole plaintiff in the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in fact the sole plaintiff Bibi Sarfu Nisha had already died on 21.3.2004 and to that effect earlier an application was also filed disclosing the name of heirs of the sole plaintiff Bibi Sarfu Nisha. 2 Subsequently, in the year 2010 respondent No.1 appeared and filed this application for being added as plaintiff without impleading the other legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff Bibi Sarfu Nisha. The learned counsel further submitted that since the suit had already abated the respondent No.1 could not have been added as the sole plaintiff by the learned court below therefore, the impugned order passed by the court below is without jurisdiction. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned court below considering the death certificate filed by the respondent No.1 has given a definite finding that she died on 5.6.2010. The learned counsel regarding this finding submitted that the death certificate filed by the respondent No.1 is forged. So far this submission is concerned it cannot be gone into in the 3 exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In my opinion, substantial justice has been done and, therefore, it is not a fit case where this court will exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)