IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2325 of 2006 1. SMT.MANJU DEVI @ MANJU DEVI, PROPRIETOR M/S JAGDAMBA IRON STEEL REROLLING MILL, RESIDENT OF NAYA BAZAR LAKHISARAI, P.S. LAKHISARAI, DISTRICT- LAKHISARAI. 2. SRI LALIT KUMAR BANKA @ LALIT KUMAR BANKA, SON OF LATE KUNJ BIHARI BANKA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-NAYA BAZAR, LAKHISARAI, P.S. LAKHISARAI, DISTRICT- LAKHISARAI. 3. M/S. JAGDAMBA IRON STEEL RE-ROLLING MILL @ JAGDAMBA IRON STEEL REROLLING MILL, THROUGH PROPRIETOR SMT. MANJU DEVI @ MANJU DEVI, W/O SRI LALIT KUMAR BANKA @ LALIT KUMAR BANKA AT HASANPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA, P.O. HASANPUR, P.S. AND DISTRICT-LAKHISARAI. …………………………………………DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS. Versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, THROUGH THE BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH LAKHISARAI, P.S. AND DISTRICT-LAKHISARAI, HOLDING POWER OF ATTORNEY OF THE BANK. ……………………………………………………PLAINTIFF-OPP. PARTY. ----------- 3. 8.9.2009. Heard Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. This Civil Revision is directed against that part of the order dated 2.11.2006 passed in T.M.S. No.44/2001, whereby the learned Sub Judge-I, Lakhisarai, had allowed the petition filed on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party under Order-XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that by order dated 2.11.2006, the court below had rejected the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 114 C.P.C. on 5.8.2006 for review of the order dated 18.3.2004 and at the same time, it had allowed the petition dated 15.7.2006 filed by the plaintiff for deleting the name of the defendant no.3 from the plaint holding that the two legal - 2 - representatives of the defendant no.3 were already on record as defendant nos.2 and 4. It is apparent from paragraph-1 of this Civil Revision that the petitioners have confined their prayer only to that part of the order whereby the petition filed by the plaintiff-opposite party had been allowed. The petitioners had neither brought on record the petition upon which the order dated 18.3.2004 had been passed nor a copy of the order dated 18.3.2004 has been appended. The petition dated 15.7.2006 filed on behalf of the plaintiff- opposite party under Order-XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been brought on record as Annexure-4 to this Civil Revision. It would be manifest from the plain reading thereof that the defendant no.3, according to the plaintiff, died leaving behind his son, Lalit Kumar and daughter-in-law, Manju Devi, both of them already on record as defendant nos.2 and 4. From the aforesaid application, it also appears that the plaintiff did not have any knowledge regarding other heirs of the deceased. Defendant nos.2 and 4, who were the son and daughter-in-law, were directed by the court below to furnish the details as to the other legal representatives of the deceased defendant no.3. However, no such information was furnished by them. The defendants petitioners had filed a rejoinder, which has been brought on record as Annexure-3, stating therein that they are not bound to supply the list of legal heirs of the defendant no.3 and this exercise should be carried out by the plaintiff. However, a prayer has been made to declare that the suit has abated as legal representatives of defendant no.3 have not - 3 - been brought on record even after 2 ½ years. It is an admitted fact that the son of deceased defendant no.3 was already on record. The defendants who were the son and daughter-in-law were knowing fully well regarding the existence or otherwise of any other legal representatives of the deceased defendant no.3 but willfully they did not furnish any information. Since one of the legal representatives was already on record and as such, there would be no question of abatement, the plaintiff was only required to bring other legal representatives of the defendant no.3 on record. It appears from the petition filed by the plaintiff that he did not have any knowledge regarding other legal representatives of the deceased and in the rejoinder the defendants petitioners had also not disclosed about the factum of being other legal representatives of the deceased. In view of the above, in the opinion of this Court, there was no option left to the trial court except to allow the petition of the plaintiff for deleting the name of the deceased defendant no.3. Thus, I do not find any merit in this Civil Revision. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)