IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1605 of 2007 SMT.SUMANTI DEVI Versus RAJKESHWAR SINGH & ORS ----------- 8/ 09.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. By the impugned order dated 20.03.2007 passed in Title Appeal No. 17 of 1996 (Fulpati Devi Vs. Rajkeshwar Singh), learned lower appellate court has disposed of three petitions, namely, (a) petition dated 30.06.2000 filed by the present petitioner under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (b) petition dated 20.07.2000 along with petition dated 09.01.2001 filed by opposite party no. 6, Chandradeo Pandey for his substitution as the legal heirs of appellant therein and (c) petition dated 13.06.2000 filed by the plaintiffs opposite party nos. 1 to 3 for abatement of appeal. It appears that Fulpati Devi, appellant in Title Appeal No. 17 of 1996, died on 01.05.2000. The petitioner claims to be her step daughter and, therefore, had prayed that she should be transposed as appellant, but that prayer has been rejected. The petition filed on 20.07.2000 by Chandradeo Pandey, for substituting himself as legal heirs of the aforesaid Fulpati Devi has been 2 allowed. However, the petition filed by opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein for abatement of appeal due to non- substitution of legal heirs of the aforesaid Fulpati Devi has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed Interlocutory Application No. 9596 of 2010 with a prayer that she may be permitted to confine her prayer in the present application with respect to rejection of her petition dated 30.06.2000 refusing her to transpose as appellant. He further seeks liberty of this Court to challenge the other part of the order by filing a separate writ petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 6 has no objection to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for confining this petition only with respect to one prayer. However, he submits that on merit, the petitioner has no case. In that view of the matter the present interlocutory application is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to confine her prayer in the present application with respect to rejection of petition dated 30.06.2000 filed by the petitioner in terms of Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Let her do so. In view of the fact that the present application is 3 confined only with respect to an order passed under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner is permitted to convert this application into an appeal in terms of Order 43 Rule 1(L) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Let her do so within a period of two weeks, failing which, the application shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench. It is needless to say that it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the other part of the order by filing a separate writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Anjani/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J )