Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Pramod Kmar Sinha, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. In spite of service of notice, nobody appeared on behalf of the opposite parties.

2. This civil revision application has been filed against the order dated 04.09.2010 passed by the learned Munsif, Ist Court, Begusarai in title execution case No.7 of 2008 whereby the Court below rejected the application under Order 21 Rule 97 and 99 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure as not maintainable without deciding the same.

3. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is not party to the title suit No.37 of 1989 which gave rise to this title execution case No.7 of 2008. His father was also not party to the said suit. The Court below in the impugned order wrongly mentioned that the petitioner’s father had filed title suit No.27 of 1989 which is incorrect and even if it is held that it is typing mistake in place of title suit No.37 of 1989, it is typed as 27 of 1989 then also the fact is that the father of the petitioner or the petitioner were never the party.

4. Perused the order. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below held that the petitioner’s father had