IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1590 of 2008 AMARNATH JHA Versus PAWAN KUMAR JHA & ORS ----------- 2 18.9.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. It has to be noted that earlier this issue had come before this Court and this Court by an order dated 28.4.2006 passed in C.R. No. 27 of 2005 as contained in Annexure-10 of this application, had directed the Court below to hold an enquiry as to who was originally mentioned as a defendant no.5 in the suit whether Pawan Kumar Jha or Pranab Kumar Jha. Pursuant thereto, an enquiry has been held and the Court below has given its finding that Pawan Kumar Jha was the person who was named as defendant no.5 in the suit. Consequently, the Court below has allowed Pawan Kumar Jha to remain in the record of the case and has allowed him to contest the suit. This part of the order therefore, cannot be to the detriment of the petitioner who was originally a defendant and has been later on transposed as a plaintiff. However, the apprehension of the petitioner that merely on the basis of averments made in the 2 plaint, Pawan Kumar Jha will automatically be held to be the son of the petitioner, is wholly misconceived. That issue, if raised at any period, will have to be gone into separately by the Court below. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this civil revision application is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)