Order This application purportedly under Order 41 rule 21 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed for re-hearing of Civil Revision No. 1635 of 1996. 2. Defendant nos. 1 to 3 of the connected suit in the court below filed application for amendment of the written statement. Their prayer was allowed on 21st August, 1996. The plaintiffs came in aforementioned civil revision i.e. C.R. No. 1635 of 1996. One of the defendants, namely, defendant no. 2, Ramesh Pandey, filed caveat. The civil revision was heard at length on 4th December, 1996. The civil revision was allowed in part on 12th December, 1996. The present application seeking re-hearing of the case was filed on 8th January, 1997. 3. It has been stated that the civil revision was disposed of without any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. According to him, he had no knowledge about the civil revision until 23rd December, 1996. Thereafter, he rushed to Patna, made enquiries and learnt about the case. It has been stated that Ramesh Pandey, opposite party no. 2 in the connected civil revision and opposite party no. 4 in the present case did not inform the petitioner about the case. 4. Mr. B.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that being an opposite party in the case, and the order impugned in the civil revision having been passed at his instance amongst others, this Court should have issued notice and given him opportunity of hearing. I repeatedly called upon him to point out any error in the order dated 12th December, 1996 so that this Court should consider the desirability of recalling the same and giving fresh opportunity of hearing. Counsel stated that he has nothing to say on the merits of the case, all that he wants an opportunity of hearing. Mr. S.S. Dwivedi, who had appeared for Ramesh Pandey in the connected civil revision, and was present during course of hearing of this case, stated that the question of hearing on merit will arise only when the order' is recalled and the civil revision is set down for hearing. Mr. Arshad Alam, who stated that he will file Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 3 Dinanath Pandey, in course of the day, made no submission at all. Mr. Arshad Alam, who stated that he will file Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 3 Dinanath Pandey, in course of the day, made no submission at all. In these circumstances, the point for consideration is whether any opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner or not. 5. As indicated at the outset, the order impugned in the civil revision, allowing amendment of written statement was passed at the instance of defendant nos. 1 to 3, namely, Dinanath Pandey, Ramesh Pandey and Basisth Pandey. Ramesh Pandey is the son of Dinanath Pandey, while Basisth Pandey also appears to be member of the family. It is hard to believe that the remaining two defendants i.e. Dinanath Pandey and Basisth Pandey would have no knowledge about the civil revision. Although it was open to Ramesh Pandey to enter caveat alone, it rather seems strange that he should enter appearance in the case only four days after the civil revision was filed, on 15th September, 1996, but would not inform the other two defendants about the same. Surely, they had common interest arid the amendment petition has been filed on behalf of three of them. 6. It is true that in the ordinary course, had the fact that the caveat had been filed on be half of only one out of three concerned defendants, been brought to the notice of this Court, the Court would have considered the desirability of issuing notice to the non-appearing defendants. But this fact was suppressed. Mr. Dwivedi admitted that it was a mistake on his part. All said, I still called upon Mr. Shukla to point out, even prima facie, any error in the order of this Court. He did not make any submission on merit. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that giving opportunity of hearing would not serve any useful purpose. The three defendants in question have pleaded a common case as the impugned order had" been passed on common application filed by them. It is true that only one of them appeared and filed caveat but, if I may say so, he was ably represented by a Senior counsel Mr. S.S. Dwivedi. If the parties are not satisfied with the order of this Court it is open to them to challenge the same by way of special leave petition in the Supreme Court. It is true that only one of them appeared and filed caveat but, if I may say so, he was ably represented by a Senior counsel Mr. S.S. Dwivedi. If the parties are not satisfied with the order of this Court it is open to them to challenge the same by way of special leave petition in the Supreme Court. This application, in my opinion, appears to be a device to delay the proceedings in the court below. 7. In the above premises, this application is dismissed.