IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1539 of 2006 SIDHNATH SINGH & ORS Versus BHAGIRATH SINGH ----------- 2 12.12.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Khurshid Alam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order passed by the Court below rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for rejection of the plaint in terms of Order-VII Rule-11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure is obviously a jurisdictional error inasmuch as the suit was barred in terms of Section 133(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court on perusal of the plaint and specially its relief as sought for, is satisfied that no order made by the Magistrate under Section 133(2) of the Cr.P.C. was called in question in the suit. The mere mentioning of cause of action for filing the suit on the basis of an, order under Section 133(2) of the Cr. P.C. would not, in the opinion of this Court, bar the suit. He next contended that as the land in question under dispute in the suit was Gairmajarua land, being in the form of a public lane, the suit was not maintainable without impleading the State of Bihar as a party. Non-joinder of party however is not the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this Civil Revision application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)