Nageshwar Bhagat v. Jhari Imam Kha And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1441 of 2017 ====================================================== Nageshwar Bhagat Son of Jagdish Bhagat, Resident of Village- Chorma Bankipur, P.O.- Chorma, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
Jhari Imam Kha and Ors son of Haidar Imam Khan, Resident of VillageChorma, Do- Aana, P.O.- Chorma, P.S.- Pakrideyal, District- East Champaran.
2.
Jagdish Bhagat, son of Late Khenha Bhagat, Resident of Village- Chorma Bankipur, P.O.- Chorma, P.S.- Pakrideyal, District- East Champaran. 3.
Lakhindra Kumar Nirmal, Son of Jagdish Bhagat, Resident of VillageChorma Bankipur, P.O.- Chorma, P.S.- Pakrideyal, District- East Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sunil Kumar No.III, Advocate For the Respondent No. 1 :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 03-12-2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.08.2016 passed by learned Sub Judge 8, Motihari at East Champaran in Title Suit No. 317 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the respondent 1st set was allowed and Title Suit No. 317 of 2014 and Title Suit No. 589 of 2014 were ordered to be heard together.
3. The learned trial court has observed that the suit property of both the title suit is the same and the parties are also same and even the issues for consideration are also same. Thus, the learned trial court held that in the interest of justice, both the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1441 of 2017(2) dt.03-12-2024 2/2 suits will be considered simultaneously.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order since parties are same and the suit property is also same and both sides claim their right, title and possession over the suit property.
6. Therefore, the impugned order is affirmed. Finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is dismissed. (Arun Kumar Jha, J) anuradha/- U