KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. BRAHMDEO PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF Nos.1 and 2 -petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 3.8.2005 passed by the Subordinate Judge, II, Barh in T.S.(P) No. 62 of 1999 refusing to review the order dated 24.5.2001, have preferred this application.

(2.) SHORT facts, giving rising to the present application, are that the original plaintiffs filed suit for partition. Later on, they filed application for withdrawal of the suit. It was taken up by the court on 24.5.2001 when Counsel for the defendants, excepting defendant no. 7, consented to its withdrawal. The learned Judge accorded permission to withdraw the suit by order dated 24.5.2001. On the same date, later on, defendant no. 7 filed application for rejecting the prayer of the plaintiffs seeking withdrawal of the suit. However, the said application was not pressed. Further, on 28.5.2001, defendant no. 7 filed application under Order 23 Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure for transposing him as plaintiff. By order dated 19.7.2001, application filed by the original plaintiffs for withdrawing the suit was rejected and order dated 24.5.2001 according permission to withdraw the suit recalled and defendant no. 7 transposed as the plaintiff. After the said order, defendant no. 7 transposed as plaintiff no. 3 and the original plaintiffs continued in the record as Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2. Neither Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 nor the defendants appeared in the suit and the suit was fixed for ex parte hearing, in which several witnesses were examined on behalf of Plaintiff No. 3.

(3.) BY reason of the impugned order, the learned Judge has dismissed the application primarily on the ground that he being successor in office, has no jurisdiction to hold that the order passed by his predecessor earlier is illegal and without jurisdiction. It further held that he lacks jurisdiction to review several orders passed by his predecessor.