IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2187 of 2006 1. NARAIN PRASAD, SON OF LATE JANKI PRASAD. 2. RAMESHWAR MAHTON @ PRASAD, SON OF LATE RAGHUNANDAN MAHTON. 3. DEONARAIN MAHTON, SON OF HARDEYAL MAHTON. 4. SRAVAN KUMAR, SON OF LATE RAM KRISHAN MAHTON. 5. LAKHAN MAHTON @ PRASAD, SON OF LATE LAXAMAN MAHTON. 6. NARESH MAHTON, SON OF SITARAM MAHTON. 7. CHANDESHWAR MAHTON, SON OF LATE BEDU MAHTON. 8. SURENDRA PRASAD, SON OF LATE CHANDESHWAR PRASAD. 9. RAMJI MAHTON, SON OF LATE SUKAN MAHTON. 10. RAVINDRA MAHTON @ PRASAD, SON OF LATE RAMAUTAR PRASAD. 11. PERMANAND SAO, SON OF LATE KARU SAO. 12. BIKU THAKUR, SON OF GOPALI THAKUR. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. – PARBAIPUR MAI, POLICE STATION – PARBALPUR, DISTRICT – NALANDA.. … (PLAINTIFFS) -- PETITIONERS Versus 1. HARENDRA NATH, SON OF BHOLA SINGH. 2. AMRENDRA NATH, SON OF BHOLA SINGH. 3. KIRENDRA NATH, SON OF BHOLA SINGH. 4. HHARTENDRA NATH SHARMA. 5. DEVENDRA NATH SHARMA. 6. RAVINDRA NATH SHARMA. 7. BADARI NARAYAN SINHA, SON OF LATE RAMESHWAR SINHA. OPPOSITE PARTY NOS. 4 TO 6 ARE THE SONF OF JAGESHWAR SHARMA. ALL RESINDETNS OF VILLAGE AND P.O. – PARBALPUR MAI, POLICE STATION – PARBALPUR, DISTRICT – NALANDA. … (DEFENDANTS) … OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner :- M/s. Suresh Chandra Prasad Singh, Lovekush Kumar, Madhukar Pandey, Advocates …. 04/ 24.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 17.10.2006, whereby the Title Suit No. 27 of 2000 has been dismissed by the Civil Judge-II, Hilsa on account of its being 2 barred by res judicata. The office has raised objection regarding the maintainability of the civil revision. It has been stated that the impugned order would be appealable in view of the decision rendered in the case of Sk. Junarbi Vs. Sk. Mahmood & Ors. reported in 2002(4) PLJR 138. This Court has held that the impugned order, declaring the suit to be not maintainable being barred by the principle of res judicata, would be a decree within the meaning of Section 22 of the Civil Procedure Code, and, thus the remedy to the every party would be to pursue an appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not answer this question. In view of the above, I hold that the civil revision is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to take a remedial step for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law by pursuing a proper appeal. It had been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the valuation of suit being Rs.32,000/- only, the appeal would lie before the District Judge concerned. If such appeal is filed along with a petition with a prayer to condone the delay within two months from today then the appellate court concerned would consider and decide such petition, taking in view the fact that the petitioner was bona fide prosecuting the civil revision before this Court. Kundan/ (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)