IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.287 of 2007 ---- 1. Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, son of Late Tarini Prasad Jaiswal. 2. Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal son of Vijay Kumar Jaiswal. Both resident of Mohalla Balughat, New Colony, Ward No.10, P.S.-Town, District-Muzaffarpur. -- Plaintiffs-Petitioners. Versus 1. Braj Kishore Lal Gupta son of Late Mahabir Lal Gupta. 2. Umesh Chandra Prakash Gupta 3. Dinesh Kumar Gupta 4. Suresh Kumar Gupta All sons of Braj Kishore Lal Gupta. All residents of Mohalla- Andigola Road, Chhata Bazar P.S.- Town, P.O.-Head Post Office, Ward No.18, Munsifi Muzaffarpur East, District-Muzaffarpur. -- Defendants 1st party-Opposite Party Ist Set. 5. Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation, through its Administration, Court Campus, P.S. Town, P.O. Head Post Office, District- Muzaffarpur. --Defendant 2nd Party-Opposite Party 2nd Set. ----- For the petitioners : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ---- 03. 20.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners challenging order dated 23.12.2006 passed in Title Suit No.42 of 2001 by which the learned Additional Munsif VIII, Muzaffarpur, rejected their petition for enhancing the amount fixed for repair. 3. The aforesaid suit has been filed by the petitioners for restraining the defendants, who were their landlords, from disturbing their possession over the suit premises which consist of two shop rooms and for which rent was Rs.800.00 per month. The said suit - 2 - was contested by the defendants-opposite parties and issues were framed and the case is pending for plaintiffs’ evidence. 4. It transpires that in the meantime in the year 2004, the plaintiffs-petitioners filed a petition in the court below for granting permission to make simple white-washing and repair of the suit premises which was allowed by the learned court below vide his order dated 17.06.2004 and the plaintiffs were directed to make the simple repair of the suit premises from their own expenditure. It transpires that the court had found that taking benefit of the said order, the plaintiffs wanted to reconstruct the roof of the shop and also to do extensive repairs of the suit premises due to which the learned court below by order dated 06.11.2004 appointed a pleader commissioner to look into the matter so that simple repair and white washing is done in the suit premises worth Rs.800.00. It transpires that after the said orders, no step was taken by the plaintiffs, nor the said orders were ever challenged before any higher court and only subsequently petitions dated 11.3.2005 and 21.07.206 were filed for review of the earlier order dated 06.11.2004. The learned court below has considered the entire matter in detail and has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are trying to take undue advantage of the earlier orders and hence they deserve no sympathy and the case has been pending for plaintiffs’ evidence. Accordingly, the learned court below rejected the petition of the plaintiffs and directed them to produce their evidence on 12.01.2007. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does - 3 - not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below, nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)