IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.77 of 2009 UMA SHANKAR MISHRA, S/o Hari Shankar Mishra, Resident of Village – Andhrathari, PS Andhrathari, District Madhubani ….Petitioner- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary Human Resource Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Collector, Madhubani, District Madhubani 5. The District Education Officer, Madhubani, District Madhubani 6. The Additional Collector, Madhubani, District Madhubani 7.The Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani 8. The Block Development Officer, Andhrathari, District Madhubani 9. The Head Master, Mahanth Rajeshwar Giri High School, Andhrathari, District Madhubani ..Respondents-Opp.Parties ----------- 03- 28.4.2010 Heard Ms. Namrata Mishra for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the opposite parties. The petitioner of CWJC No.5492 of 2007, has preferred the present application for review and modification of the order dated 11.2.2009, whereby the writ petition was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s grandfather owned plot no. 1801, and was never gifted in favour of the school. She further submits that the story of gift propounded by the other side is ex-facie incorrect because the petitioner is Uma Shankar Mishra, whereas the respondent authorities have described his grandfather as Mathura Prasad Yadav. 2. It is not possible to examine the issues relating to right, title and interest of the parties in writ jurisdiction, much less the present review jurisdiction. It was obviously with this object in my mind that we had stated in the order under review that “…….It thus appears that the school is prima facie fortified 2 by registered document of title…….” It is evident that the order dated 11.2.2009, was not on the basis of substantive evidence led by the parties, and was meant for the limited purpose of finding out a prima facie case for disposal of the writ petition. Therefore, it will be open to the petitioner to institute a civil suit before the competent jurisdiction which, if instituted, shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. Neither this order, nor the said order dated 11.2.2009, be taken to be an expression of the views on merits of the matter, nor with respect to the question of limitation with respect to the proposed suit. 3. This application is accordingly disposed of. ( S K Katriar ) mrl