IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2269 of 2007 1. DWARIKA PRASAD, S/O LATE RAM DAS SAH 2. AMAR NATH PRASAD, S/O LATE BADRI PRASAD BOTH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-SARAIYAGANJ, GANDHI CHOWK, CHATA BAZAR, P.O.+ P.S.-MUZAFFARPUR EAST, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR. ……………PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER. Versus 1. SUNIL KUMAR JAISWAL 2. ANIL KUMAR JAISWAL BOTH SONS OF LATE RAM NARAIN CHAWDHARY 3. SMT. NEELU JAISWAL, W/O ANIL KUMAR JAISWAL 4. BABITA KUMARI JAISWAL, W/O ANIL KUMAR JAISWAL MOHALLA SARAIYAGANJ, GANDHI CHAWK, CHATA BAZAR, P.O.+ P.S.-MUZAFFARPUR EAST, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. 5. MUZAFFARPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR) ------------ 4 26.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties. This revision application has been filed by the plaintiffs against order dated 10.8.2007 by which the application of the plaintiffs for recall of the order dated 7.4.2006 permitting the opposite parties to be added in the suit as defendants has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 7.4.2007 was absolutely non-speaking order and the submissions and contentions raised by the plaintiffs against the petition of the opposite parties for adding them as defendants in the suit filed in 2002 were not noticed at all. She also submits that while allowing the petition - 2 - of the opposite parties for adding them as defendants in the suit, the learned court below did not consider the provisions of order I rule10 of the C.P.C. She also submits that the suit has been confined for permanent injunction against the Municipal Corporation from demolishing the ancestral house of the plaintiffs. The court below did not consider as to whether the opposite parties were at all necessary parties in the present suit. She has taken this Court through the petition for recall filed by the plaintiffs annexed as Annexure-3 in which specific objections were raised by the plaintiffs with regard to adding the opposite parties as defendants in the suit with a prayer to recall the earlier order dated 7.4.2006. After going through the order dated 10.8.2007, it appears that the court below has not considered the objections of the plaintiffs raised in the petition for recall. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the court below has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in considering the said prayer of the plaintiffs for recall of order dated - 3 - 7.4.2006. As such the order dated 10.8.2007 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below for reconsideration of the recall petition of the plaintiffs. The court below shall hear the parties in the matter and pass speaking order on the same. The opposite parties shall be at liberty to raise all objections against the maintainability of the recall petition including limitation as available to them. It is also made clear that any observations made in this order shall not be taken into account by the court below for consideration of the recall petition of the plaintiff and its disposal on merits. In the result, this revision application is allowed. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)