Suresh Kumar And ORS v. Dhananjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No. 1290 of 2017 ===========================================================
1. Suresh Kumar Son of Shiv Pujan Prasad Sah.
2. Shakti Vishal.
3. Gaurab Vishal.
4. Sanni @ Vivek Vishal.
2 to 4 are Soons of Suresh Kumar.
All resident of Village-Hamidpur Tola, Police Station-Deviganj, P.O. Kesariya, District-East Champaran.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
Dhananjay Prasad, Son of Late Shiv Pujan Sah, resident of Village-Hamidpur Tola, Police Station-Deviganj, P.O. Kesariya, District-East Champaran. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anil Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT & ORDER Date: 04-10-2017 By the impugned order, dated 30.06.2017, passed in Title Suit No. 677 of 2016, learned Sub-Judge-IX, East Champaran at Motihari has rejected an application filed by the petitioners, under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (in short
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1290 of 2017 dt.04-10-2017 2/3 'the Code'). The partition suit, bearing Partition Suit No. 300 of 2002, was filed by petitioner No. 1, which was dismissed, on contest, by the judgment, dated 10.06.2016, by learned SubJudge-IX, East Champaran at Motihari, against which a title appeal, bearing Title Appeal No. 80 of 2016, is pending in the Court of learned District Judge, East Champaran at Motihari.
2. During the pendency of the title appeal, the respondent has filed Title Suit No. 677 of 2016, claiming his title over a portion of the land in question and also for recovery of possession. It is in that background that the petitioners filed the said application, under Section 10 of the Code, for stay of Title Suit No. 677 of 2016 (Reg. No. 493/2016). The said application has been rejected by the impugned order.
3. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the court below has rightly recorded that the matter, in issue, in both the suits, is not the same inasmuch as in the earlier suit, the matter, in issue, was whether the parties had unity of title and jointness of title over the suit property, whereas, in the subsequent suit, the matter, in issue, is as to whether the plaintiff of that case has subsisting title over the suit property.
4. I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1290 of 2017 dt.04-10-2017 3/3 order, requiring this Court's interference, exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. This application, having no merit, stands dismissed. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Praveen-II/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 04.10.2017 Transmission Date N/A