IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1750 of 2006 1. PANCH LAL THAKUR, S/o late Lochan Thakur 2. Chhabi Lal Thakur, S/o late Lochan Thakur 3. Sadanand Thakur, S/o late Lochan Thakur 4. Bihari Thakur S/o late Lochan Thakur All resident of villae Matiyari, P.S. Forbesganj, District Araria …. Plaintiffs …. Petitioners Versus 1. MOST.BASMATI DEVI , W/o late Ram Sewak Ram 2. Rajendra Pd. Gupta, 3. Yogendra Pd. Gupta Both sons of Late Ram Sewak Ram 4. Smt. Kaushalya Devi 5. Smt. Ram Kumari Devi 6. Smt. Raj Kumari Devi 7. Smt. Girja Devi 8. Smt. Prabha Devi 9. Smt. Sudama Devi All daughers of Late Ram Sewak Ram All residents of Manikchand Road, P.S. Forbesganj, District Araria 10. Pulkit Thakur, Son of late Lakhan Thakur 11. Gayanand Thakur, Son of late Lakhan Thakur 12. Prithvi Thakur, Son of late Lakhan Thakur All residents of village Matiyari, P.S. Forbesganj, District Araira ….Defendants ….Opp. Parties. ----------- 7 13.11.2009 Heard Mr. Dronacharya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, G.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the Opp. Party No. 2, who has also filed Vakalatnama on behalf of O.P. No. 3, however, that has been filed after dismissal of this case against the aforesaid O.P. No. 3 (Yogendra Prasad Gupta). This revision is directed against the order dated 30.6.2006 passed by the Sub Judge I, Araria in Misc. Cae No. 7 of 2001, whereby the concerned Court has dismissed the aforesaid case filed for restoration of Title Suit No. 78 of 1994 its original file. This civil revision earlier stood dismissed against O.P. Nos. 1, 3 to 9 due to non compliance of the order passed by this Court. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that T.S. No. 78 of 1994 was filed for setting aside the decree passed in T. S. No. 122 of 1981. Title Suit No. 78 of 1994 was dismissed for default and Misc. Case No. 7 of 2001 was filed for restoration of the aforesaid title suit with its original file. The miscellaneous case was also dismissed by order dated 30.6.2006, which is the subject matter of challenge in this civil revision. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the brothers are on record, therefore, the civil revision may proceed. Earlier the matter came before this Court that as to whether the civil revision is competent to proceed in absence of the opposite parties against whom the same had stood dismissed. The issue was deferred to be heard at the time of admission. However, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 submitted that all the opposite parties against whom the civil revision has been dismissed are sons and daughters of the O.P. No. 1, and all of them represent the O.P. No. 1 itself. However, in my opinion this civil revision is not competent to proceed in the absence of the aforesaid opposite parties against whom the same has been dismissed as that would lead to passing of conflicting order. In case this revision is allowed and original title suit is restored, the same shall remain dismissed as against some of the opposite parties as the revision already stands dismissed against them. Thus, it may lead to passing of conflicting decree in the suit itself. Thus, the civil revision is dismissed as having become incompetent to proceed with. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)