IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.286 of 2008 Kali Prasad @ Kali Sao (now dead) son of late Laxuman Sao resident of Mohalla- Sardar Ballabh Bhai Path Chowk Sarafa, holding no. 19, Ward No.2, Gaya P.S. Kotwali Town, District- Gaya. Defenhdant-Appellant-Appellant-petitioner. Versus Ashok Kumar son of late Hari Kishun Das, resident of village- Khairat Ahmad Road, Morarpur, Gaya, P.S. Kotwali, Gaya, District- Gaya. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Opposite Party. ----------- For the petitioners: M/S S.S.Dvivedi,Sr. Advocate with R.S.Dvivedi, Adv. For the respondent: None. ------------ 3/ 10-12-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This case has been filed by three petitioners , claiming to be successors in interest of Kali Prasad @ Kali Sao, for review of order dated 01.08.2007 passed by this Court by which S.A.No. 38 of 1991 filed by the said Kali Prasad was dismissed. 3. The petitioners were not parties to the second appeal and they claimed to have inherited the suit property from their father, Lal Babu Sao who is said to have died on 16.09.2003. It is also claimed that Lal Babu Sao inherited the suit property from his brother Ram chandra Sao, who died issueless on 11.02.2001, his wife predeceasing him. It is also claimed that the said Ram chandra Sao got the suit property by way of gift dated 04.09.1993 from one Parwati Devi, the sister of the appellant Kali Prasad @ Kali Sao who died on 22.05.1993, leaving behind only Parwati Devi as his heir because his wife and daughter had predeceased him. 4. The instant second appeal was filed in the year 1991 by the aforesaid Kali Sao alone and much after his death on 22.04.1993 his aforesaid sister Parwati Devi filed an interlocutory - 2 - application on 26.07.1996 for being substituted in his place as his sole heir and legal representative in the second appeal. The said application was filed much beyond the statutory period of limitation without any prayer for setting aside abatement and without even mentioning about any deed of gift of 1993 executed by her in favour of Ram Chandra Sao . Subsequently Parwati Devi also died on 15.11.2996, where-after none of her heir or successor filed any application and hence her interlocutory application for substitution was dismissed. 5. After more than a year of the death of Parwati Devi the said Ram Chandra Sao filed an interlocutory application on 12.11.1997 for being substituted in place of Kali Sao , but although the said application was hopelessly barred by time no prayer for setting aside abatement was made therein. However, during the pendency of the said interlocutory application, Ram Chandra Sao also died on 11.02.2001 but thereafter no one came forward as heir or successor of the said Ram Chandra Sao for being substituted and hence the said interlocutory application was also dismissed. 6. After ten years of the death of Parwati Devi and after six years of the death of Ram Chandra Sao the case was placed for consideration on 01.08.2007 before this Court and although such a long time had lapsed, no one appeared to raise any claim and hence this Court had no option but to dismiss the second appeal as having become incompetent because the sole appellant had himself died and all the interlocutory applications for substitution/ transposition in his place were found to be without any merit and not maintainable due to - 3 - the deaths of the applicants themselves, where-after the alleged heir, even the petitioners of this petition, had not appeared for all those long years. 7. It may be noted in this connection that admittedly the said defendant-appellant Kali Sao was a tenant of the suit premises and the plaintiff- respondent had purchased the suit premises from its original owner , where-after the said defendant paid rent to the plaintiff. Furthermore, both the learned courts below after considering the pleadings of the parties and their respective evidence came to a definite findings that a mere Mahadnama alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant would not change their status and relationship unless the title is transferred and hence relationship of landlord and tenant existed between them. The learned courts below also arrived at specific findings that the defendant- appellant was not in possession of the suit premises as part performance of any agreement, rather he was in possession as a tenant and that he was a defaulter in the payment of rent and hence he was liable to be evicted on that ground and was also liable to pay the arrears of rent from January to May, 1984, 8. In the said circumstances when the claim of the defendant- appellant was itself rejected by findings of facts of both the learned courts below his alleged successor in interest, namely, the petitioners, cannot have any superior claim as according to their own claim they have stepped in the shoes of the said defendant- appellant. Thus it is quite apparent that the entire exercise is to delay the matter - 4 - as long as possible because the eviction matter is continuing since 1984 and the abovementioned second appeal itself had remained pending for sixteen years, i.e., from 1991 to 2007. 9. Furthermore, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record in the said order nor does it find any fresh material which was not available to the petitioners when the final order was passed in the second appeal nor does this Court find any other reason to review of the impugned order. In the said circumstances this civil review petition is dismissed. B.Tiwary/ (S.N Hussain,J)