IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.779 of 2008 Arun Kumar son of Dayanand Prasad resident of Mohalla Barbigha Main Road, PS Barbigha, District Sheikhpura .....Petitioner/Defendant Versus 1. Sadanand Prasad son of late Kharag Ram resident of Village / Mohalla Barbigha, PS Barbigha, District Sheikhpura 2. Sri Kant Singh son of Late Tanisk Singh, r/o Sherpur Chand Kuan, PS Barbigha, District Sheikhpura .... Opposite Parties/Plaintiffs ----------- 04- 21/10/2011 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the opposite parties (the plaintiffs). The defendant has preferred this civil revision application under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and is aggrieved by the order dated 11.4.2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sheikhpura, in Eviction Suit no.1/2005, whereby his application praying that the suit cannot continue in view of the circumstances indicated therein, has been rejected. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the opposite parties. On the strength of a Power of Attorney executed by four persons, indeed full brothers and the owners of the property in question, the opposite parties herein instituted the Eviction Suit in question. Two of the executants of the Power of Attorney died leading to the 2 defendant’s application that the suit cannot proceed in the absence of comprehensive authorization. While disposing of the application, the learned court has held that this issue shall be considered at the time of final hearing of the matter. In such a situation, no objection can be taken to the same. 3. It is a frivolous revision application and is dismissed with cost quantified at Rs.5000/- (five thousand) which the defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs within the time to be fixed by the learned trial court failing which the defendant’s written statement shall be ignored. mrl ( S K Katriar, J. )