Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J.

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. Original plaintiffs, i.e. Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 filed application on 19.4.2004 for reviewing the order passed subsequent to the orders dated 24.5.2001, inter alia, contending that order dated 12.7.2001 recalling the order dated 24.5.2001 according permission to withdraw the suit, was passed without notice to them. They further alleged that they did not know about the continuance of the suit and could know about the same only when Mr. Subhash Chandra Singh, Advocate for the original plaintiffs, while present in the court on 24.3.2004, saw that evidence is being adduced by the mother of the original Defendant No. 7, he informed the original plaintiffs, upon which they came to the court and on inspection of the record found that Defendant No. 7 has been transposed as Plaintiff No. 3 and order according permission to withdraw the suit has been recalled by order dated 24.5.2001. Accordingly, original plaintiffs prayed for review of the orders passed subsequent to the order dated 24.5.2001.

4. 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.

5. Mr. Shri Nandan Singh, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the successor in office can review the orders passed by his predecessor, if it finds error apparent on the face of. record and the view takerrto the contrary, while passing the impugned order is illegal.

6. Mr. Chitragupta Prasad, however, appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 7 contends that the view taken by the learned Judge, cannot be said to be erroneous and as such, this is not a fit case which calls for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Aflahabad High Court in the case of Madan Mohanji Maharaj vs. Sunder Lal AIR 1953 All. 554 and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from paragraph no. 5 of the said judgment, which reads as follows :

"5. xxx-In-Ram Lal vs. Ratan Lal, 26 All 572 (A) a Bench of this Court held that a High Court cannot revise an order of an inferior Court declining to review its judgment. That case was distinguished in-Akbar Khan v