IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.639 of 2006 PREM LAL KUMAR SHARMA Versus SHUSHILA DEVI & ORS ----------- 13 24/10/2008 Heard counsel for the parties. The impugned order, in fact, is one which has been passed refusing to review the earlier order dated 18.7.2005. This Court would not find any reason to interfere with the said order, in as much as, the Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to show much less pin point any error apparent on the face of the records so as to necessitate the exercise of power of review by the Court below. Counsel for the petitioner however has tried to explain that the order dated 18.7.2005 was passed while the petitioner had gone to Vishakhapatnam. That hardly can be a ground for review of the order in as much as the aforesaid order was passed in presence of the Counsel for the petitioner. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the property of the petitioner is being made 2 subject matter for realization of loan of the principal loanee i.e. Defendant no. 2 and 2/A which is not permissible under law. In the opinion of this Court such stand taken by the petitioner is contrary to the materials on record inasmuch as, property in question still stands recorded in the name of principal loanee. That apart on inter party dispute amongst the defendant cannot be gone into in a mortgage suit filed by the plaintiff State Bank of India and therefore, even if money is being realized for fulfillment of Bank Loan, the petitioner cannot resist the same on the ground of his alleged rights in the property which is yet to be decided in a partition suit. Accordingly, this application, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar