ORDER 1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by a Single Judge of the b High Court of Judicature at Patna in CR No. 1017 of 1997. By the impugned order the High Court has dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order passed by the trial court. 2. One Raghubar Narayan Singh, father of Shree Narayan Singh, the appellant herein, was the Managing Trustee of Rai Bahadur Dilip Narayan Singh Trust Estate. Respondent 1 Suraj Narayan Gupta was a tenant of the suit premises. Raghubar Narayan Singh filed Eviction Suit No. 15 of 1992 seeking eviction of Respondent 1 from the suit premises. During the pendency of the suit, Raghubar Narayan Singh died leaving behind his son, the appellant herein and two wives Prem Lata Devi and Muneshwari Devi, Respondents 2 and 3 herein. Raghubar Narayan Singh had executed a general power of attorney in favour of one of his wives Prem Lata Devi authorising d her to deal with the property, which the appellant is contesting in the title suit. Prem Lata Devi and Muneshwari Devi have died during the pendency of the appeal in this Court. There is no need to bring their legal representatives on record as the appellant being the son of Raghubar Narayan Singh is already on the record. 3. Prem Lata Devi had entered into a compromise with Suraj Narayan e Gupta, Respondent 1 and moved an application to withdraw the suit. On an application moved by the appellant, he was brought on the record as a co-plaintiff. The suit was dismissed as withdrawn in spite of objections raised by the appellant that Prem Lata Devi did not have the power to enter into a compromise with Respondent 1. 4. Aggrieved against the order passed by the trial court, the appellant f filed Civil Revision No. 1017 of 1997 which has been dismissed by the impugned order. It was observed by the High Court that Respondent 1 had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement entered into by Prem Lata Devi with him for sale of the property and she had already executed a sale deed in his favour. In view of the fact that Respondent 1 had already become the owner, the contest to the eviction suit by the appellant had 9 become infructuous. In view of the fact that Respondent 1 had already become the owner, the contest to the eviction suit by the appellant had 9 become infructuous. Against the judgment and decree in Title Suit No. 50 of 1988, filed by Respondent 1 for specific performance, an appeal is still pending in the High Court being First Appeal No. 513 of 1996. 5. Heard counsel for the parties. 6. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the findings recorded in the revision petition would prejudice his case before the High Court in FA No. 513 of 1996. We find force in this submission. 7. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal with the observation that the High Court while deciding First Appeal No. 513 of 1996 would not influence itself by any of the observations made in the impugned order and shall decide the same on its own merits on the basis of the evidence present on the record in FA No. 513 of 1996. It is made clear that if the appellant ultimately is found to be the owner of the suit property then he would be at liberty, if so advised, to move afresh seeking eviction of Respondent 1 from the suit property. This order be taken as if we are holding that Prem Lata Devi had either the power to enter into compromise in the eviction suit or in the suit for specific performance of the agreement with the respondent. 8. Nothing stated herein shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of this case. 9. With these observations, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.