IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.343 of 2007 ---- Kunti Devi, D/o Late Badri Narayan Lal, W/o Late Krishna Das, resident of Chimnighat, Patna City, P.S.- Chowk, P.O. Patna City, District-Patna. -- Decree Holder-Petitioner. Versus 1. Ghanshyam Das, s/o Late Badri Narayan Lal, Resident of Nilima Cottege, Morabadi, Ranchi, P.O.& P.S.- Morabadi, District-Ranchi. 2. Radheshyam Agrawal, S/o Late Badri Narayan Lal, resident of Mohallah- Lalpur, 145, H.B. Road, P.O. & P.S.-Lalpur, District- Ranchi. 3. Smt. Radha Devi, D/o Late Badri Narayan Lal, W/o Late Raghu Nath Prasad Agrawal, resident of Village-Telhara, P.O.-Telhara, P.S. Ekanagar Sarai, District-Nalanda. 4. Rani Agrawal, D/o Late Badri Narayan Lal, W/o Sri Kailash Prasad Agrawal, resident of Mohallah- Daulatganj Chapra, P.O. & P.S.- Chapra, District-Saran. 5. Smt. Rukmini Devi, D/O Late Badri Narayan Lal, W/O Bindeshwari Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Assi, P.O. & P.S.- Assi, District-Varanasi. -- Decree Holders-Opposite Parties. ----- For the petitioner : M/s Sushanta Kumar Das & Ratna Das, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. ---- 03. 14.07.2009 I.A.No.977 of 2007 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for condoning the delay in the filing of the civil revision. From the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the statements made in the interlocutory application, it transpires that genuine reasons have been shown which prevented the petitioner from filing the instant civil revision earlier. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay in the filing of the civil revision is condoned. 2. I.A.No.2144 of 2008 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner on 18.03.2008 for substituting the heirs of the sole - 2 - petitioner Kunti Devi who is said to have died on 01.12.2007 leaving behind five sons as her heirs and legal representatives fully detailed in paragraph 2 of the interlocutory application. This prayer is within the statutory period of limitation and the interlocutory application is also accompanied by duly executed vakalatnama of the aforesaid heirs who are all major. Another prayer has been made in the said interlocutory application for substitution of the heir of opposite party no.5 Smt. Rukmini Devi who is said to have died on 11.11.2007 leaving behind only a son as her heir and legal representative fully detailed in paragraph 3 of the interlocutory application. This prayer is also within the statutory period of limitation. Accordingly I.A.No.2144 of 2008 is allowed. Let the aforesaid heirs of the sole petitioner and opposite party no.5 be substituted in their respective places. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. This civil revision has been filed by one of the decree- holders challenging order dated 27.09.2006 by which the learned Subordinate Judge XII, Patna rejected the petition of the petitioner to make payment of the decretal amount. 5. It is true that much delay has occurred as the Execution Case No.03 of 1984 was filed much earlier, but at the same time for making payment of the decretal amount to all the individual decree holders precautions have to be taken and by the impugned order, the learned court below has taken only such precautionary measures by directing all the decree holders to appear before the court and state as - 3 - to whether payment order should be made in their favour individually or payment order should be passed in favour of one person authorised by all of them. It was also directed by the impugned order that such objection must come through the respective lawyers of the individual decree holders or if new advocates are appointed, the said petitions must accompany the vakalatnama of the said counsel. 6. In the said circumstances, 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. However, since the matter has already been delayed, the learned court below is directed to take all necessary steps so that payment order is passed as early as possible and if in the facts and circumstances, some decree holders are genuinely not able to come, an appropriate fresh order be passed in that regard. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)