IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.46 of 2008 1. Shree Kailash Sharma @ Kailash Sharma. 2. Shree Shubhash Sharma alias Subhash Sharma. 3. Shree Rajendra Sharma alias Rajendra Sharma. 4. Shree Anil Sharma @ Anil Sharma. All sons of late Jagdish Sharma. All residents of Village- Tikampur, P.S.-Muffasil Munger, District- Munger at present-Purab Sarai Raisar, Muhalla-Madhopur, P.O. Munger,P.S. Muffasil Munger, District-Munger. (Plaintiffs).....Petitioners. Versus 1. Most. Ananta Devi alias Ananta Devi W/O Late Jaganbi Sharma. 2. Lalita Kumari. 3. Sulochna Devi. 4. Ratnmala Devi. 5. Ahilya Devi. 6. Sabita Kumari. 7. Anita Kumari. 8. Sarita Kumari alias Sarita. All 2 to 8 daughters of late Jagdambi Sharma, resident of Village- Tikarampur- Pargana-Munger, P.S. Muffasil Munger, District- Munger. At present resident Purabsarai,P.O. Munger, P.S. Muffasil Munger, District--Munger. 9. Papu Sharma alias Pankaj Kumar Sharma S/O Late Jagdambi Sharma...(Defendants Ist set) O.P. Ist Set. 10. Sri Ashok Sharma son of late Siya Ram Sharma. 11. Most. Muso Devi, wife of late Siya Ram Sharma. 12. Sri Parma Nand Sharma @ Kari Sharma. 13. Sri Kant Lal Sharma. 14. Sri Lallu Sharma. 12 to 14 sons of late Thakur Sharma. 15. Shri Rajkishor Sharma son of late Satya Narain Sharma. 16. Achuta Nand Sharma @ Uchit Sharma son of Late Babu Lal Sharma. 17. Sri Sunil Sharma. 18. Sri Shalendra Sharma. 19. Rajo Sharma.Sons of late Chandra Deo Sharma. All residents of Village- Tikarampur, P.S. Muffasil Munger, P.O. Tikarampur Chandisthan, District-Munger. (Defendant 2nd Set) O.P. 2nd Set. 20. Smt. Shanta Devi wife of late Munindra Nath Sharma. 21. Bijay Sharma. 22. Hridya Sharma. Both sons of late Munindra Nath Sharma. 23. Smt. Hemlata Sharma daughter-in-law late Munindra Nath Sharma wife of late Ajay Kumar Sharma contested parties 20 to 23 resident of village- Hasanganj, P.O. Hasanganj(Munger) P.S. Mufassil, District-Munger. .....(Defendant 3rd set(O.P. 3rd set). 24. Juman Singh, son of Dukha Singh, resident of Village- Tikarampur, P.S. Muffasil, District- Munger..(Defendant 4th set) -O.P. 4th set. 2 ----------- For the petitioners: M/S. Uma Shankar Singh No.2 and Krishna Pd. Singh No.2, Advocates. For the Opposite Parties : None. ----------- 4. 28.10.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners challenging the order dated 05.09.2007 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-II, Munger, allowed the application dated 31.05.2007 of interveners- opposite party nos. 20 to 23 claiming to be the heirs of defendant no.19, Munindra Nath Sharma in his place as he had died on 8.10.2002 during the pendency of Title Suit No. 81 of 1973. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners for partition of the suit land and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed ex-parte on 22.4.1978 by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Munger, against which, defendant no.19, Munindra Nath Sharma, filed Misc. Case No. 39 of 1983 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was finally allowed on 11.5.1988 and the suit was directed to be re- heard with respect to the applicant of the Misc. Case. It transpires that the said suit is still pending. 4. It is not in dispute that the said defendant no.19, Munindra Nath Sharma, died on 8.10.2002 and no application for substitution of his heirs was filed by the plaintiffs, although it was their duty as dominus litus and only an application was filed in the suit informing the court about the death of the defendant no.19. Thus, it is quite apparent that the petitioners- plaintiffs had failed in their responsibility to substitute the heirs of defendant no.19. 5. However, later on 31.5.2007 the heirs of the said defendant 3 no.19 filed an application for being added as defendants in place of defendant no.19 who had died on 8.10.2002 and the said application was allowed on contest by the learned courtbleow vide its order dated 5.9.2007, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 6. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenged the said order, but it is quite apparent that the said application is not under the provision or Order XXII Rule 9 or 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure rather it has been filed under the provision of Order 1 Rule 10(2) or 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and further more in the facts and circumstances of the case, the application of the applicants can not legally be rejected on the ground of delay. 7. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality and jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed with a direction to the trial court to expedite the disposal of the suit and to decide it without any further delay as much time has already been consumed. U.K. (S.N.Hussain,J)