Patna High CourtC.R./10/2016dfd for non appearance

Parshuram Pathak And ORS v. Rambali Yadav And ORS

2017-02-27Mr. Justice V. Nath2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Revision No.10 of 2016 ======================================================

1. Parshuram Pathak son of Late Ramayan Pathak

2. Ram Awtar Pathak son of Parshuram Pathak

3. Kirtan Pathak son of Parsuram Pathak All are residents of village - Ijari Sri Ram, Post - Mahdah, P.S. - Buxar (M), District - Buxar. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Rambali Yadav son of Late Sabha Singh Yadav

2. Tejnarayan Yadav son of Late Sabha Singh Yadav

3. Asha Devi wife of Late Rajnarayan Singh

4. Sunil Kumar

5. Nilam Kumari

6. Kiran Kumari Minor son and daughters under guardianship and natural friend of their mother Asha Devi and father Late Rajnarayan Singh

7. Beera Singh son of Late Sabhe Singh Yadav

8. Kalawati Devi w/o Late Jayram Singh

9. Bharat Singh son of Late Vishwanath Singh

10. Awadhesh Singh son of Late Vishwanath Singh

11. Jagnarayan Singh son of Late Vishwanath Singh All are resident of village - Ijari Budhan, P.O. - Mahdah, P.S. - Buxar (M), District - Buxar.

12. Geeta Devi wife of Shri Kishun Tiwary

13. Ravi Bhushan Tiwary son of Shri Kishun Tiwary

14. Uday Narayan Tiwary son of Shri Kishun Tiwary All (12 to 14) resident of village - Ijari Sri Ram, P.O. - Mahdah, P.S. - Buxar (M), District - Buxar.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gopal Swaroop Dubey For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL ORDER 27-02-2017 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioners or the

Patna High Court C.R. No.10 of 2016 (2) dt.27-02-2017 opposite parties.

The present revision application has been filed against the impugned order whereby the learned court below has rejected the prayer of the defendants for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned court below has come to the categorical finding that the present plaintiff was not a party in the Title Suit No. 159 of 2005 and as such the provision of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. does not bar the present plaintiff.

As nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioners to press the application, the revision application is, accordingly, dismissed as not pressed.

Devendra/- (V. Nath, J) U