IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2241 of 2006 1. RAM RANVIJAY THAKUR, 2. Achambhu Thakur alias Uday Thakur, both sons of late Akshabar Thakur, 3. Shanti Bhushan Thakur @ Khiyali Thakur, 4. Devendra Thakur, both sons of Sri Ran Vijay Thakur, all residents of village Rajpur, Post Office Charghar Police Station Bihiya, District Bhojpur… … Defendants/Petitioners Versus HARE RAM THAKUR son of Deo Muni Thakur, resident of of village Rajpur, Post Office Charghar, Police Station Bihiya, District Bhojpur… … Plaintiff/Opposite Party For the Petitioners: Mr. Hari Shankar Roy, Advocate For the O.P. : M/s Pramod Kumar Rai, Sandeep Kumar, Advocates ----------- 6 07.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This revision is directed against the order dated 20.10.2006 passed by the 3rd Munsif, Bhojpur (Ara) in Title Suit No. 204 of 2002 whereby the prayer of the defendants-petitioners to hear the suit analogous with Title Suit No. 138/1989 has been rejected. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the issues in both the suits are directly and substantially identical and the parties of the Partition Suit are also party in the subsequent suit. Only difference is that the purchasers from the plaintiff of the earlier Title Suit No. 2 138/1989 had filed the subsequent suit, which is also a suit for removal of encroachment and declaration of title. The plaintiff of that suit is also a party in the subsequent suit. Learned counsel for the sole opposite party submitted that earlier the petitioners had filed an application under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of the subsequent suit. However, the court concerned had also rejected the same and that order has not been challenged by the petitioners. It is also submitted that in the earlier suit several other properties are also involved, which are not in issue in the subsequent suit. I have heard the parties and perused the record of this case. I am of the opinion that the issue is substantially the same in both the suits, as the purchasers from the plaintiff of the earlier suit, after the said transaction, had filed the subsequent suit. The concerned transaction is admittedly of the period of the pendency of the earlier Title Suit No. 138 of 1989. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, the concerned court has committed serious error in passing the 3 order rejecting the prayer of analogous hearing of both the suits. In the result, this civil revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the court concerned is directed to hear Title Suit No. 138 of 1989 analogous with the subsequent suit i.e., Title Suit No. 204 of 2002. If the suits are pending before two different courts, then the concerned District Judge shall pass the necessary order, so that both are heard analogous by one court. However, it is observed that since one of the suits is of the year 1989, it is expected from the court concerned that steps for expeditious and early hearing of the suits would be taken by it. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)