IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.617 of 2007 ---- 1. Buta Mochi 2. Kishori Mochi Both are sons of Late Faudar Mochi and are resident of Mohalla-Lachuman Sahai Lane, Gurudwara Road, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Gaya. Principal Defendant-Respondent-Petitioners Versus 1. Jagdish Mochi son of Late Muni Mochi Resident of Mohalla-Lachuman Sahai Lane, Gurudwar Road, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Gaya. Plaintiff-Appellant-Opposite Party. 2. Kanhai Ram 3. Sheonandan Ram Both are sons of Late Nanhak Mochi. 4. Deokali Devi widow of Late Nanhak Mochi 5. Raju Mochi son of Late Chandra Mochi 6. Sikandar Mochi 7. Sanjay Mochi Both are sons of Late Sahdeo Mochi. 8. Pyari Devi widow of Late Sahdeo Mochi All are resident of Mohalla-Lachuman Sahai Lane, Gurudwara Road, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Gaya. Principal Defendants-Respondents-Opposite parties. ----- For the petitioners : Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ----- 03. 07.10.2009 I.A.No.1885 of 2007 has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for condoning the delay in the filing of the civil revision. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioners and the statements made in the interlocutory application, it appears that genuine reasons have been shown which prevented the petitioners from filing the civil revision earlier. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay in the filing of the civil revision is condoned. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. - 2 - 3. This civil revision has been filed by the defendants- petitioners challenging order dated 02.12.2006 by which the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court-II, Gaya, exempted the plaintiff-appellant-opposite party no.1 from substituting the heirs of Dulariya Chamian, who is respondent no.6, in Title Appeal No.03 of 2003. 4. The said title appeal has arisen out of Title Suit No.11 of 1986 which was filed by opposite party no.1 for declaration of title and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was contested by the defendants, whereafter the said suit was dismissed by the learned trial court. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.03 of 2003 in which the defendants appeared and contested and the argument was concluded on 21.12.2005. 5. It transpires that on 21.12.2005 itself the plaintiff- appellant-opposite party no.1 filed an application in the lower appellate court stating that respondent no.6 of that appeal, who although filed her written statement had never contested the suit, had died and he may be exempted from filing an application for substitution of her heirs. The said application has been allowed by the learned court below vide its order dated 02.12.2006 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 6. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the materials on record, it is quite apparent that no jurisdictional error has been committed by the - 3 - learned court below while passing the said order. However, if the defendants-petitioners have any genuine grievance with respect to the said aspect of the matter, they would be at liberty to take it as a point before any appeal/revision filed by anyone against the final judgment and decision in Title Appeal No.03 of 2003. 7. With the aforesaid observation, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)