Order This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India under the supervisional jurisdiction of this Court. 2. In substance, the petitioner filed a suit before learned Munsif, 2nd, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 49 of 2005, in which he has prayed that the plaintiff be declared legally married wife of late Dasai Ram and also railway authority may be directed to provide employment, pension and other service benefits to the petitioner Kunti Devi and nm to any other person and "further prayed to stop pension and employment to any person except Kunti Devi". 3. In the said suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 C.P.C. was moved by the plaintiff petitioner restraining the defendant to provide employment on compassionate ground and other service benefits to any other person namely defendant nos. 4 and 5. By said Title Suit the plaintiff petitioner has stated that her husband was employed in the Railway Department and he died in harness. After his death, the petitioner claimed for the post retiral and other benefits. Pursuant to the death of late Dasai 'Ram, the petitioner has alleged that she is legally married wife of late Dasai Ram and she has four children out of the said wedlock. When she went to the office of the respondent, she came to know that one Smt. Pushpa Devi has also applied for the pension of late Dasai Ram and also claiming herself to be the wife of late Dasai Ram. So the petitioner plaintiff filed a suit for the redressal of the above grievances. 4. The defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 had filed the written statement asserting that late Dasai Ram has nominated Smt. Pushpa Devi as beneficiaries of the pension in the records of the defendants. The Union of India also denied that the petitioner-plaintiff is the second wife of the late Dasai Ram. Tho rest of the defendant nos. 4 and 5 i.e. son of the first wife and Smt. Pushpa Devi, who is the first wife, denied the factum of marriage with the plaintiff petitioner and they stated that Smt. Pushpa Devi is only married wife of the deceased and they are entitled to get the benefit of the pension and other benefits of the deceased. 5. 4 and 5 i.e. son of the first wife and Smt. Pushpa Devi, who is the first wife, denied the factum of marriage with the plaintiff petitioner and they stated that Smt. Pushpa Devi is only married wife of the deceased and they are entitled to get the benefit of the pension and other benefits of the deceased. 5. After hearing the parties, learned Munsif, 2nd, Dhahbad dismissed the application and thereafter, an appeal was preferred which was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, FTC. No.-IV, Dhanbad. 6. Being aggrieved by the said ardor, this petition has been preferred by the plaintiff-petitioner. The appellate Court has specifically concluded that the deceased had nominated Smt. Pushpa Devi, who is defendant no. 5, as legally married wife of the deceased and plaintiff-petitioner is not legally married wife. In view of the above findings, he confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, From perusal of the records, it is apparent that in a Matrimonial Case vide T(M)S 135 of 2001 between the defendant no. 5 and her husband late Dasai Ram, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad observed that the plaintiff late Dasai Ram has not denied that Smt. Pushpa Devi is legally married wife of the plaintiff. Thus, it is admitted fact and this fact has been noticed by learned Munsif, 2nd, Dhanbad and learned Additional District Judge, FTCIV, Dhanbad, while coming to the conclusion that the petitioner-plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of injunction. The mode of the payment of the pension which has been prescribed by the Union of India to its employees is either by the nomination or by the succession. Petitioner himself nominated the name of Smt. Pushpa Devi, so the question of succession would not arise and only nominee would be entitled to get pension. 9. Without going into further merit of the case, I find that findings recorded by both the Courts below are correct and I do not find any error in the said findings. The petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The findings recorded by this Court in this judgment shall not prejudice the trial Court while deciding the suit. The trial Court would not be influenced in any way by the observation made by this Court in deciding the matter. 10. The petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The findings recorded by this Court in this judgment shall not prejudice the trial Court while deciding the suit. The trial Court would not be influenced in any way by the observation made by this Court in deciding the matter. 10. Accordingly this petition is dismissed, no order as to costs.