Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1261 (PAT)

Middle School, Pethiya Gochhi v. Ganesh Choudhary

2014-12-18

V.NATH

body2014
V. Nath, J. – Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. By the impugned order, the learned court below has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for hearing the eviction suit no. 08 of 2004 pending in the court of Civil Judge Junior Division No. 2, Samastipur and T.S. No. 210 of 2010 pending in the court of Civil Judge Senior Division No. 3 Samastipur analogously. 3. This is not in dispute that the aforesaid eviction suit has been filed against the revision petitioner seeking its eviction. The T.S. No. 210 of 2010 has been filed thereafter by the revision petitioner against the plaintiff of the eviction suit claiming the title over the suit premises. The suit premises are common in both the suits and the parties are also same. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned court below has committed material irregularity in concluding that the suit plots are different in the two suits whereas in fact it is not shown. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the plaint of the two suits from which also it appears that the suit plots are same and probably that the learned court below has not taken into notice the cadastral survey plots which is same and thereafter the R.S. plots which are also same. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party though supported the order but could not substantiate the submissions. 6. After careful consideration of the matter and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the civil revision application is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.05.2013 is hereby set aside. The T.S. No. 08 of 2004 pending in the court of Civil Judge Junior Division No. 2 Samastipur is directed to be transferred to the court of Civil Judge Senior Division No. 3 Samastipur where the T.S. No. 210 of 2010 is pending and it is further directed that both the suits shall be heard analogous and decided without delay. This order has been passed in presence of the learned counsel for both the parties who have expressed consent for early disposal of the two suits. It is expected therefore that both the parties shall cooperate in disposal of the suits as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of this order. 7. This order has been passed in presence of the learned counsel for both the parties who have expressed consent for early disposal of the two suits. It is expected therefore that both the parties shall cooperate in disposal of the suits as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of this order. 7. The revision application is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.