IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.2149 of 2007 1. Sri Rambali Mochi, son of late Babulal Mochi 2. Sri Pawan Paswan 3. Sri Aari Paswan, both sons of late Darbari Paswan, all residents of Mauza Sakrawan, Police Station-Asthawan, District-Nalanda ---- Defendant Nos. 1, 9 and 10/Petitioners. Versus 1. Sri Riyaz Ahmad, son of Md. Abdul Wasin. 2. Smt. Hameeda Khatoon, daughter of Md. Abdul Wasin, both residents of Mauza Sakrawan, Police Station-Asthawan, District-Nalanda ---- Plaintiffs/Opposite Party Ist Set. 3. Arjun Mochi, son of late Babu Lal Mochi. 4. Rajo Mochi, son of late Baidyanath Mochi. 5. Bablu Mochi, son of Hari Lal Mochi 6. Bhura Mochi, son of Rajo Mochi, all residents of Mauza Sakerawan, Police Station-Asthawan, P.O. Asthawan, District-Nalanda ---- Defendant Nos. 2, 4, 7, 8/Opposite parties 2nd sets. ---------------------------------- 4. 18.10.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to correct the typographical error in the cause title of the civil revision application. 2. Heard Mr. Ashok Nandan Prasad for the petitioners. Defendant nos. 1, 9 and 10 of Title Suit No. 71 of 1996, have preferred this civil revision application under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and challenge the validity of the order dated 20.8.2007, passed by the learned Munsif, Biharsharif (Nalanda), whereby he has set down the suit for ex-parte 2 hearing. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is bad in law for the reason that defendant no.9 (Pawan Paswan), and defendant no.10 (Aari Paswan), are residents of Delhi, whereas notices have been served on them as per their Nalanda addresses. In other words, in his submission, there is no valid service of notices on these defendants. The contention is stated only to be rejected, inter alia, for the reason these two defendants, on their own showing have already entered appearance in the suit through counsel, who have filed duly executed Vakalatnama. Furthermore, they are aware of the pendency of the suit, have preferred the instant civil revision application, and are petitioner nos. 2 and 3 here. A comparable situation had come up for the consideration of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Chandra Nath Bagchi Vs. Nabadwip Chandra Dutt and others, A.I.R. 1931 Calcutta 476, and identical contention was rejected. Rankin, C.J. speaking for the Bench observed that such a submission is piling unreason upon technicality. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the 3 petitioners in the present case is rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that defendant no.11, Hari Lal Mochi, defendant no.5, Darbari Paswan, and defendant no.6, Mithilesh Mochi are dead, notwithstanding which the suit has been set down for hearing against them. Darbri Paswan is dead, and it appears to us from the array of defendants that defendant nos. 3, 4 and 6 to 10 are sons of Darbari Paswan. Other defendants are already on record. The position may have been fundamentally different had Hari Lal Mochi, Darbari Paswan and Mithilesh Mochi were the only defendants, and the estate of Darbari Paswan would have been completely un-represented in the suit. In that view of the matter, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is hereby rejected. However, the learned trial court shall take care to clear the doubts when he takes up the matter. 5. The civil revision application is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.)