Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.

Petitioners/plaintiffs have prayed for quashing of the order dated 18.01.2013 passed by Sri R. Ranjan, Additional Munsif, Naugachia in Title Suit No.24 of 1999 whereby and where under the prayer made on behalf of petitioners/plaintiffs dated 25.05.2012 under Order-I, Rule-10(2) of the C.P.C. has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs has submitted that the prayer of the petitioners/plaintiffs would not have been rejected by the learned lower Court, more particularly on the theme of barred by law of limitation, in the background of the fact that while considering the prayer in terms of Order-I, Rule-10(2) of the C.P.C., the learned lower Court should have considered the status of the person whether happens to be a necessary party coupled with the fact that whether in absence of those persons the dispute could be effectively decided in its finality.

3. Furthermore, it has been submitted that at the stage of filing plaint, petitioners/plaintiffs could not be able to procure revisional survey khatiyan and as, there was no reference in the Jamabandi Register regarding those persons whose presence have been shown under remark column