Raj Kishore Sah v. Puneet Sah And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Revision No.137 of 2016 =========================================================== Raj Kishore Sah, son of Late Jagdish Sah, resident of Village- Sahwajpur Patwa, PO- Harauli, PS- Hajipur, District- Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Puneet Sah, son of Late Balgovind Sah, resident of Village- Sahwajpur Patwa, PO- Harauli, PS- Hajipur, District- Vaishali.

2. Ram Prasad Sah, son of Late Ganga Sah.

3. Rekha Devi, wife of Late Shree Sah.

4. Rajeev Kumar, son of Late Shree Sah.

5. Sanjay Kumar, son of Late Shree Sah.

6. Bebi Kumari, daughter of Late Shree Sah.

7. Dewratiya Devi, wife of Late Bhonu Sah.

8. Bishun Sah, son of Late Bhonu Sah.

9. Savita Devi, daughter of Late Bhonu Sah.

10. Neetu Devi, daughter of Late Bhonu Sah.

11. Sulekha Devi, daughter of Late Bhonu Sah.

12. Mosamat Siyawati Devi, wife of Late Baiju Sah.

13. Rakesh Kumar, son of Late Baiju Sah.

14. Mukesh Kumar, son of Late Baiju Sah.

15. Mithilesh Sah, son of Late Babu Lal Sah.

16. Rakesh Sah, son of Late Babu Lal Sah.

17. Leela Devi, wife of Late Babu Lal Sah. All are resident of Village- Sahwajpur Patwa, PO- Harauli, PS- Hajipur, District- Vaishali. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 10-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Patna High Court C.R. No.137 of 2016 dt.10-05-2017 By the impugned order the learned court below has restored the suit to its original file.

After considering the submissions and perusal of the materials on record including the impugned order, this Court finds that the leaned court below has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties before reaching to the conclusion that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing sufficient cause for restoration of the suit. The findings recorded by the trial court are on the basis of the evidence which were acceptable and could have been relied upon. This Court finds that the learned court below has not committed any illegality or error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. The revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. (V. Nath, J) Devendra/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 15.05.2017 Transmission Date