consider the aforesaid fact and passed the impugned order which is not in accordance with law. He further submits that at Para-7 of the aforesaid Miscellaneous Case, it has specifically been pleaded by the opposite parties that they got knowledge about the dismissal of the aforesaid partition suit from Halka Karamchari on 11.06.2005 but, even then, they did not file Miscellaneous case within the period of limitation but I am not at all convinced with the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners because the opposite parties specifically pleaded in Miscellaneous Case No.09 of 2005 that when they got information from Halka Karamchari about dismissal of the aforesaid partition suit, they approached their counsel as well as advocate clerk, who after hectic search got collected the information that the aforesaid partition suit has already been dismissed in default and, thereafter, the opposite parties immediately filed the aforesaid Miscellaneous case without making any delay. Moreover, there is nothing on the record to show that when the Partition Suit No.161 of 1998 was transferred from the court of Sub-Judge-I, Gaya, to the court of Sub-Judge-II, Gaya, any information regarding the transfer of the aforesaid partition suit was given to the opposite parties/ plaintiffs and, therefore, in my view, there is no ground to interfere into the impugned order and, accordingly, this Revision petition stands dismissed on Admission stage itself and the impugned order dated
