IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.254 of 2008 Liyakat Ali, son of Abdul Kadir, resident of village Barka Takiya, P.O. Khudaibagh, P.S. Khaira, District Saran………..Defendant 1st party-Petitioner. Versus 1.Md. Mustafa Kamal, son of Abdul Hamid, resident of Mohalla Karim Chak, P.O. + P.S. Chapra Town, District Saran…………..…. Plaintiff-Opposite party 1st set. 2. Bibi Mahmuda Khatoon wife of Sarur Mohammad, 3. Sarur Mohammad, son of Late Noor Mohammad, resident of Karim Chak, P.O. + P.S. Chapra Town, District Saran. ……Defendants 1st party-Opposite party 2nd set. 4. Hidayal Ali Ansari, son of Safi Ansari resident of village Bedwalia, P.O. Garakha, P.S. Bheldi, District Saran. ……………Defendant 3rd party-Opposite party 3rd set. For the petitioner :Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate. For opposite party nos.2 and 3 :Mr. Raghib Ahshan, Sr. Advocate with M/s Deepak Kr. Singh and Saba Asafaque, Advocates. ----------- 04/ 14.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant no.3- petitioner challenging order dated 15.11.2007 by which learned Subordinate Judge-VI, Chapra rejected his application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for striking out Issue Nos.7, 8 and 9 of Title Suit No.184 of 1997. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiff-opposite party no.1 for declaration of his title and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was contested by the defendants, whereafter issues were framed and evidence started and thereafter evidence of the parties were also closed. 4. It transpires that at the said stage defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 appeared in the court and submitted that earlier when the 2 issues were framed in the suit they had not appeared nor their written statements were on record and the earlier issues were framed only on the basis of submissions made on behalf of plaintiffs, hence they prayed that issues be recasted. Thus on the submissions of defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 themselves, issues were recasted on 15.03.2007, hence there was no question of raising any objection by defendant no.3 at that stage, nor order dated 15.03.2007 was ever challenged by defendant no.3 before any higher authority. 5. It further transpires that only when the suit proceeded further defendant no.3-petitioner filed an application for striking out the aforesaid recasted Issue nos.7, 8 and 9. The said application has been rejected by learned court below vide its order dated 15.11.2007 against which the civil revision has been filed. 6. Although learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the aforesaid order of learned court below, but it transpires that the said issues were recasted at the instance of defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 which included the petitioner also and hence now they cannot raise any objection to it, specially when other parties are not objecting to it. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below, nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )