IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.15 of 2007 ---- 1. Most. Ganga Kuer w/o Late Nagesar Pandey @ Nageshwar Pandey, 2. Kanhaiya Pandey, son of Late Baban Pandey Both resident of village-Binahi, P.O.- Pandeypur, P.S.- Beghauch Ghat, District-Deoria (Uttar Pradesh) -Defendants 1st party-Petitioners. Versus 1. Kisuna Pandey, son of Late Banshi Pandey, Resident of village- Binahi, P.O.-Pandey pur, P.S.-Baghauch Ghat, District-Deoria (Uttar Pradesh). --Plaintiff-Opposite Party 1st Set. 2. Chandrama Pandey, son of Late Sheonandan Pandey 3. Sugandhi Kuwar, wife of late Baban Pandey Both (O.P.nos.2 and 3) resident of village-Binahi, P.O. Pandeypur, P.S.-Baghauch Ghat, District Deoria ( Uttar Pradesh). -- Defendants 1st Party- Opposite Parties 2nd Set. 4. Ram Raksha Pandey, son of Late Saraju Pandey Resident of village- Anand Nagar, P.O.-Vishunpura Bazar, P.S.- Baghauch, District-Deoria (Uttar Pradesh). 5. Ramayan Yadav, son of late Dilip Yadav 6. Hira Yadav, son of Gabbu Lal Both (5 & 6) resident of village-Navalpur, P.O.-Bairia, P.S. Kateya, District-Gopalganj. -- Defendants 2nd party- Opposite Party 3rd Set. ----- For the petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey no.5, Advocate For opposite party no.1: Mr. Nityanand Mishra, Advocate 13. 22.06.2009 Heard learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners and learned counsel for plaintiff-opposite party no.1. This civil revision has been filed by some of the defendants challenging order dated 02.11.2006 by which learned Subordinate Judge I, Gopalganj rejected their petition for abatement of Title Suit No.323 of 2004 under the provision of Section 4 (c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. From the arguments of the parties and the materials on - 2 - record, it is quite apparent that originally the suit was filed on 19.08.2004 for partition of alleged moiety share of the plaintiff, but subsequently on 24.08.2006 the prayer of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint was allowed by which relief of permanent injunction against the defendants was sought. It is quite apparent that by the said amendment primary relief in the suit became permanent injunction but the said order was never challenged by the defendants before any higher court. In the said circumstances, the learned court below has rightly come to the conclusion that since the suit is mainly for permanent injunction it cannot abate under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and, accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)