Patna High CourtC.R./166/2013dismissed

Gajendra Prasad Singh v. Yugeshwar Prasad Singh And ORS.

2016-08-02Mr. Justice V. Nath2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Revision No.166 of 2013 ======================================================

1. Gajendra Prasad Singh Baldeo Prasad Singh Resident Of Village - Pahepur, P.S. Samastipur (Muffsil), Distt. Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Yugeshwar Prasad Singh Late Vikkan Singh Resident Of Village - Pahepur, P.O. Shambhupatti, P.S. Samastipur ( Muffasil), Distt. Samastipur

2. Nageshwari Devi W/O Late Parmeshwar Singh Resident Of Village - Pahepur, P.O. Shambhupatti, P.S. Samastipur ( Muffasil), Distt. Samastipur

3. Sunil Kumar Singh Parmeshwar Singh Resident Of Village - Pahepur, P.O. Shambhupatti, P.S. Samastipur ( Muffasil), Distt. Samastipur

4. Rakesh Kumar Singh Parmeshwar Singh Resident Of Village - Pahepur, P.O. Shambhupatti, P.S. Samastipur ( Muffasil), Distt. Samastipur

5. Virendra Prasad Singh Late Baldeo Prasad Singh Resident Of Village - Pahepur, P.O. Shambhupatti, P.S. Samastipur ( Muffasil), Distt. Samastipur

6. Nagendra Prasad Singh Late Baldeo Prasad Singh Resident Of Village - Pahepur, P.O. Shambhupatti, P.S. Samastipur ( Muffasil), Distt. Samastipur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL ORDER 02-08-2016 Heard Mr.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

The present revision application has been filed against the order by which the learned court below has allowed the prayer of the defendants as made under Section 10 C.P.C and has stayed the proceeding of the suit till the decision of earlier partition suit no.166/2008.

After considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and from the perusal of the impugned

Patna High Court C.R. No.166 of 2013 (4) dt.02-08-2016 order, it is manifest that the same issue of law and fact between the parties with regard to the same property is directly and substantially in issue in the earlier partition suit no.166/2008. This fact has been also accepted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. This Court does not find that the learned court below has committed error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in passing the impugned order.

The revision application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(V. Nath, J) Nitesh/- U