IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1815 of 2006 1. SHIVDANI SINGH, son of Parmdhan Singh and 2. Balmati Kuer, wife of Late Shidheshwar Singh, both are residents of Village – Kusmi, P.S. Pauthu, Anchal – Rafiganj, P.O. Maulviganj Pauthu, Distt. – Auranbagad ………………….. Plaintiffs / Petitioners Versus 1. GULJAR SINGH, S/o Late Janardhan Singh, 2. Ramanand Singh, S/o Gufar Singh, 3. Lav Kumar, 4. Kush Kumar, 5. Krishna Kumar, All O.P. No.3-5 are minor sons of Ramanand Singh through their father and natural guardian Ramanand Singh, and all are residents of Village – Kusmi, P.S. Pauthu, Anchal – Rafiganj, P.O. Maulviganj Pauthu, Distt. – Aurangabad, At present R/o Village – Lakhibag, River Side, P.S. – Muffasil, P.O. – Buniadganj, Distt. Gaya, 6. Rampati Devi, wife of Dinesh Singh, 7. Anil Sharma, 8. Srikant Sharma ,O.P No.7 & 8 are sons of Dinesh Singh, residents of Village – Kusmi, P.S. Pauthu, Anchal – Rafiganj, P.O. Maulviganj Pauthu, Distt. – Auranbagad …….. Defendants / Opposite Parties, & 9. Bachi Devi, wife of Rajeshwar Singh, R/o Village – Parsawan, P.O. Tarari, P.S. – Konch, Distt. – Gaya, At present R/o Village & P.O. Maulviganj, Pauthu, Distt. – Aurangabad … Intervenor/Opposite Party. ----------- 4. 14.07.2009. Heard Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioners. The plaintiffs – petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 9.8.2006 passed by the Sub Judge III, Aurangabad in Partition Suit No. 14 of 1998 / 41 of 1999. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that previously Rampati Devi claiming herself to be the daughter of Hridya Muni Kunwar had intervened into the matter and she was allowed to become a party. 2 Thereafter she was debarred from filing any written statement and subsequently Opposite Party No. 9, Bachhi Devi has also filed a petition that she is also the daughter of late Hridya Muni Kunwar and, as such, she should also be impleaded as a party in the aforesaid partition suit. Learned counsel submits that the whole exercise is only to get another chance for filing a written statement. Learned counsel also submits that though the plaintiffs have been heard but the order impugned is not a reasoned one. The court below after hearing both the parties on consideration of the rival submissions has come to the conclusion that it would be proper in the interest of justice to implead said Bachhi Devi as a party – defendant. At the time of argument, learned counsel produced a copy of the rejoinder filed by the petitioner opposing such intervention. Let it be kept on record. However, it does not appear from the copy of the rejoinder that there was any serious challenge to the mother-daughter relationship between Bachhi Devi and Hridya Muni Kunwar. 3 In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 9.8.2006. As a result, this Civil Revision stands dismissed. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )