IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1850 of 2007 GANESH THAKUR Versus MOD.NARAIN THAKUR ----------- 6 18/7/2008 Heard the parties. Though this case was listed under the heading ‘for orders’ for taking steps for substitution, this Court with the consent of the parties has taken up this matter for disposal as issue which is involved in this case is very simple and the substitution of the opposite party, in fact, has already been made in the court below. As a matter of fact, counsel for the petitioner should be more careful in filing the civil revision application against a dead person (opposite party no.2). The prayer for substitution in the light of facts mentioned in I.A. no. 4029 of 2008 is allowed. Be that as it may,, this Court does not find any merit in this civil revision application for a simple proposition that the issue which has been decided by the impugned order dated 14.8.2007 is absolutely a non issue. What has been done by the court below is that a rejoinder filed by the plaintiff-petitioner has been marked as exhibit. Counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy this Court as to what prejudice would be caused if the admitted document filed by the petitioner is brought on records by way of an exhibit and admitted in evidence. That being the position, there is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. 2 Considering the fact that the arguments of the parties have already been commenced and both the parties say that they do not need to adduce any further evidence, neither oral nor documentary, this Court would direct the court below to conclude the arguments and deliver judgment within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar