Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1231 (PAT)

Chandra Mohan Rai v. Suraj Narayan Lal

2003-12-01

S.K.KATRIAR

body2003
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Choudhary for respondent No.4 (Smt. Ahilaya Devi). I.A. No. 6874 of 2000 has been filed by the appellant for tranfer of Title (Eviction) Appeal No. 10 of 1999, Title (Eviction) Appeal No. 11 of 1999 and Title (Eviction) Appeal No.8 of 1999, pending in the court of learned District Judge, Samastipur to this Court to be heard analogous with the present appeal (First Appeal No. 496 of 1999). The same was taken up for preliminary hearing on 12.2.2001, and on which date notices were issued on this application and it was also directed that there shall be stay of further proceedings in the said three appeals until further orders of this Court. In the meantime, respondent no.4 has filed I.A. No. 1666 of 2002 to vacate the said interim order. 2. The present appellant had instituted Title Suit No.14 of 1991 for declaration of title of the suit property which was disposed of by the impugned judgment leading to the present appeal. The appellant also preferred Eviction Suit No. 16 of 1993 against one Raj Kumar Gupta which was dismissed, giving rise to the aforesaid Title (Eviction) Appeal No. 10 of 1999. The present appellant had also instituted Eviction Suit No. 15 of 1994 against one Amrendra Bhushan Jha which was dismissed giving rise to the aforesaid Title (Eviction) Appeal No. 11 of 1999. The present respondent no.4 had preferred Eviction Suit no.8 of 1994 against aforesaid Amrendra Bhushan Jha which was decreed giving rise to the aforesaid Title (Eviction) Appeal No.8 of 1999. As stated hereinabove, I.A, No. 6874 of 2000 has been filed in this appeal for transfer of the aforesaid title appeals from the Civil Court of Samastipur, to this Court, inter-alia, on the ground that the subject-matter of the four appeals are over-lapping and the parties are also common. The present appeal relates to declaration of title with respect to Plot no. 110 which is equivalent to Holding no. 158 (old), and 154 (new), covering an area of 12 dhurs and accommodates two shops. 3. The question for consideration is whether or not it is permissible in law, and whether or not it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case to transfer the three appeals to this Court. 158 (old), and 154 (new), covering an area of 12 dhurs and accommodates two shops. 3. The question for consideration is whether or not it is permissible in law, and whether or not it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case to transfer the three appeals to this Court. It appears to me for the purpose of disposal of the present application that the property is overlapping in the four appeals and should preferably be heard together to avoid inconsistent judgment and decrees. It is not difficult to visualise that in the event the present appeal is decided earlier than the three title (eviction) appeals, then the same may have an adverse effect on the latter. In case the three title (eviction) appeals are decided first, then the findings of facts may subject to exceptional circumstances bind this Court in the second appeals that may be filed against them which, in their turn may have an effect on the present appeal. I am, therefore, of the view that it is appropriate that all the four appeals be heard together. I am in this connection supported by the order dated 27.8.1980, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in M.J.C. No. 345 of 1979, whereby the two title appeals pending in the Court of the learned District Judge of Siwan were transferred to this Court to be heard analogous with First Appeal No. 642 of 1979. Accordingly, l direct the District Judge, Samastipur, to transfer the aforesaid three appeals along with the records of the trial court to this Court to be heard analogous with the present appeal. (3.1) I.A. No. 6874 of 2000 is accordingly allowed. 4. In so far as I.A. No. 1666 of 2002 is concerned, the net result is that the present appeal and the three appeals directed to be transferred to this Court are first appeals, wherein all issues of facts and law would be open to the parties. It would, therefore, be appropriate that interim order dated 12.2.2001 passed by this Court is allowed to continue until further orders of this Court. (4.1) I.A. No. 1666 of 2002 is accordingly disposed of.