Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. The impugned order dated 16.10.1993 passed by Subordinate Judge-III, Ranchi, in Partition Suit No. 144 of 1981 relates to substitution of Smt. Sabitri Devi (opposite party No. 1) in place of original defendant No. 7, Smt. Anar Devi. 2. One Sukul Biswakarma husband of plaintiff No. 1 Parwati Devi and Ganesh Viswakarma filed the aforementioned Partition Suit No. 144 of 1981 against the defendants-opposite parties for partition of the suit properties situated at Old Gurdri, 2nd Street, Ranchi, within Municipal Ward No. V, Holding No. 329, Plot No. 206 measuring an area of 0.54 decimal. The suit was contested by the parties. Ultimately the suit was decreed in terms of the reliefs claimed therein and the defendant No. 7 Anar Devi was held to be entitled for 1/5 the share in the suit properties. A preliminary decree was prepared on 8.4.1993. 3. The defendants-opposite parties filed First Appeal No. 59 of 1983(R) before this Court against that preliminary decree but the same was ultimately dismissed by Judgment dated 4.4.1991 by a Single Judge of this Court and the suit proceeded before the court below for preparation of final decree as per allotment of shares declared in the preliminary decree. 4. During the course of proceeding of the suit and when the same was pending in the First Appeal, by a registered sale deed dated 31.12. 1984, the defendant No. 7 who has been made as opposite party No. 10 in this civil revision application, sold her 1/5th share to the petitioner Nago Viswakarma and by a petition dated 3.1.1985, the petitioner claimed to be impleaded as defendant in the suit and allotted him 1/5th share to defendant No. 7 Anar Devi. 5. Anar Devi also filed an application supported by an affidavit, supporting the claim of the petitioner. Such petition remained pending before the court below as the aforementioned partition suit was pending in the First Appeal in the High Court. After the disposal of the said First Appeal when the original record was remitted back to the learned lower court for preparation of final decree, then the petitioner pressed his application dated 3.1.1985 for impleading him as party defendant and allot him 1/5th share. After hearing, the prayer was allowed by the learned court below by order dated 22.2.1993. After the disposal of the said First Appeal when the original record was remitted back to the learned lower court for preparation of final decree, then the petitioner pressed his application dated 3.1.1985 for impleading him as party defendant and allot him 1/5th share. After hearing, the prayer was allowed by the learned court below by order dated 22.2.1993. The petitioner during the pendency of the First Appeal also filed a petition for impleading him as party in place of Anar Devi and by order dated 6.3.1990, he was impleaded as party in the First Appeal by order of this Court. 6. Opposite Party No. 1 (Smt. Sabitri Devi) filed an application on 31.3.1993 before the learned lower court stating that she had purchased 1/5th Share of Smt. Anar Devi, by a registered deed of sale dated 31.12.1984 through one Ramu Mistry, the attorney of Smt. Anar Devi and as such she prayed for substituting her name in place of Anar Devi. To such petition the petitioner Nago Viswakarma filed objection and after hearing objection, the impugned order has been passed to substitute the name of Smt. Sabitri Devi in place of Anar Devi after recalling the previous order passed in favour of the petitioner Nago Viswakarma. 7. Mr. M.Y. Eqbal. appearing for an on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is without jurisdiction as the learned Subordinate Judge had no authority to recall the earlier order of substitution of the petitioner in place of Anar Devi when he cannot sit as revisonal Court of the order passed earlier by the same court. 8. Mr. V. Shivnath, appearing for and on behalf of Savitri Devi argued strenuously that sale of share of Anar Devi in favour of Smt. Sabitri Devi is earlier in point of time and when Anar Devi herself has cancelled deed of sale in favour of Nago Viswakarma, the impugned order was correctly passed in substituting Sabitri Devi in place of Anar Devi. It appears that in the impugned order, the learned court below placed stress on the cancellation of deed of sale in favour of Nago Viswakarma by Anar Devi which, according to law, is not tenable. There cannot be cancellation of deed of sale without the process of the court by the vendor himself/herself. It appears that in the impugned order, the learned court below placed stress on the cancellation of deed of sale in favour of Nago Viswakarma by Anar Devi which, according to law, is not tenable. There cannot be cancellation of deed of sale without the process of the court by the vendor himself/herself. Moreover, the disputed point between the defendant already impleaded and an outsider cannot be decided by the court below, more so when already there is an order of substitution in favour of Nago Viswakarma not by the lower court alone but by the High Court also. There is no scope or jurisdiction of the learned court below to sit over those orders passed earlier. The impugned order is definitely without jurisdiction and as such illegal on the face of it. It Smt. Sabitri Devi has got a genuine claim, she can move before the proper authority for redressal of her grievances. 9. For the reason aforesaid, there is much force in the civil revision application and hence the same is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.10.1993 is hereby set aside, but in the circumstances of the case, I shall make no order as to costs.