IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.32 of 2010 1. JANKI KUER W/O LATE PARMANAND SINGH R/O VILL.- BAREJ, P.O.- BELAURI, P.S.- MOHANIA, DISTT.- KAIMUR 2. AJAY KUMAR SINGH MINOR S/O LATE PARMANAND SINGH R/O VILL.- BAREJ, P.O.- BELAURI, P.S.- MOHANIA, DISTT.- KAIMUR 3. JAGDEEP KUMAR SINGH MINOR S/O LATE PARMANAND SINGH, UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HER MOTHER JANKI DEVI R/O VILL.- BAREJ, P.O.- BELAURI, P.S.- MOHANIA, DISTT.- KAIMUR 4. RAMANAND SINGH S/O LATE RAM JANAM SINGH R/O VILL.- BAREJ, P.O.- BELAURI, P.S.- MOHANIA, DISTT.- KAIMUR 5. ROSHAN SINGH @ RAUSHAN KUMAR SINGH MAJOR S/O LATE PARMANAND SINGH R/O VILL.- BAREJ, P.O.- BELAURI, P.S.- MOHANIA, DISTT.- KAIMUR … Defendants/appellants/O.P.1st set/Petitioners Versus 1. JOKHAN SINGH S/O RADHA KISHUN SINGH R/O VILL.- BAREJ, P.O.- BELAURI, P.S.- MOHANIA, DISTT.- KAIMUR 2. ANIL KUMAR SINGH S/O RADHA KISHUN SINGH R/O VILL.- BAREJ, P.O.- BELAURI, P.S.- MOHANIA, DISTT.- KAIMUR 3. MOST. KIRAN KUER S/O RADHA KISHUN SINGH R/O VILL.- BAREJ, P.O.- BELAURI, P.S.- MOHANIA, DISTT.- KAIMUR 4. KALENDER SINGH @ KALENDER KUMAR SINGH S/O RADHA KISHUN SINGH R/O VILL.- BAREJ, P.O.- BELAURI, P.S.- MOHANIA, DISTT.- KAIMUR … Plaintiffs.Respondents/Petitioners/O.P.1st set 5. RADHA KISHUN SINGH S/O LATE JAGARDEO SINGH R/O VILL.- BAREJ, P.O.- BELAURI, P.S.- MOHANIA, DISTT.- KAIMUR … Defendant 2nd set/Respondent/O.P.2nd set 6. RAMNATH SINGH S/O LATE SATYA NARAIN SINGH R/O VILL.- BAREJ, P.O.- BELAURI, P.S.- MOHANIA, DISTT.- KAIMUR … Proforma Defendant/Respondent/O.P.3rd set ----------- 3. 23.6.2010 Though this case has been listed for substitution of O.P.No.1, this Court taking a very limited scope of this review application has heard the counsel for the petitioners on merits. In that view of the matter, as 2 there is also sufficient explanation for delayed filing of this review application, well explained in the connected I.A.No. 1686/2010, the delay in filing of the review application is condoned. I.A.No. 1686/2010 is accordingly disposed of. I.A.No. 1687/2010 The prayer made in this application for filing of this review application by the legal heirs of late Permanand Singh for the reasons mentioned therein is allowed. I.A.No. 1687/2010 is accordingly disposed of. I.A.No. 1763/2010 The prayer made in this application by petitioner no.5 of prosecuting the matter in his independent capacity on account of his becoming major is also allowed. I.A.No. 1763/2010 is accordingly disposed of. Coming to the merits of the review application the solitary ground pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that before the order of this Court dated 18.9.2009, allowing C.R.No. 1673/2005 was 3 passed the title appeal itself has been disposed of, in the facts and circumstances of this case would be no ground for review of the order. By the aforesaid order dated 18.9.2009 the prayer of the plaintiff for amendment in the plaint was allowed on certain terms and conditions. Admittedly those conditions also included payment of Rs. 20,000/- by way of cost for allowing such amendment. It is the case of the petitioner that the plaintiff-appellant before the court below had not deposited the amount and in fact they could not have done so because of appeal being disposed of by the judgment dated 6.1.2009 and decree dated 16.1.2009. Counsel also informs that as against the judgment of the lower appellate court dated 6.1.2009 a second appeal bearing S.A.No. 150/2009 has already been filed. In that view of the matter, there would be no reason to review the order of this Court inasmuch as the effect of the order of this Court could not be carried out due to dismissal of the appeal. Thus, there is no need to pass any 4 order on the review application, which is accordingly disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha.J.) Surendra/