1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.77 of 2008 ----------- 1. Mithilesh Kumar Singh @ Mithilesh Singh 2. Ajay Kumar Singh Both are sons of late Ranjeet Singh 3. Lagan Devi @ Lagain Devi, wife of late Ramjeet Singh All are resident of village Rampur, Pithaghat, P.O. Garkha P.S. Garkha, District Saran at Chapra. ….Defendants-Petitioners. Versus 1. Jitendra Bhagat 2. Satendra Bhagat Both sons of late Budhan Bhagat 3. Prabha Devi, wife of Harihar Nath Bhagat 4. Kehuli Devi, wife of Manokamna Bhagat 5. Sharda Devi, wife of Vishundeo Bhagat 6. Pratibha Kumari All Sl. Nos. 3 to 6 are daughters of Late Budhan Bhagat 7. Reshma Kuer, wife of late Budhan Bhagat, All resident of village Rampur, Birvan, P.O. Garkha P.S. Garkha, District Saran at Chapra .8. Keshna Devi, d/o late Rameshwar Bhagat, wife of Jagarnath Bhagat, resident of village Mane, P.S. Dighwara, District Saran at Chapra. 9. Sirato Devi, daughter of late R”ameshwar Bhagat, wife of Dhupan Bhagat, resident of village Naya Gaon, P.S. Nayagaon, District Saran Chapra. ….Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties 1st set. 10. Sarfuddin Miyan, son of late Jakir Miyan 11. Panpati Devi, wife of late Manager Bhagat 12. Harnedra Bhagat 13. Sikandar Bhagat Both are sons of late Manager Bhagat 14. Nilam Devi, wife of Raju Bhagat 15. Jhilan Devi, wife of Ram Bhagat 16. Kusum Devi, wife of late Sunil Bhagat Sl. No. 14 to 16 are daughters of late Manager Bhagat, All residents of village Rampur, Virbhan, P.O. Garkha P.S. Garkha, District Saran at Chapra. 17. Fulmati Devi, wife of late Shiv Nandan Bhagat 18. Satish Singh, son of late Ranjeet Singh resident of village Rampur, Pithaghat, P.O. Garkha P.S. Garkha, District Saran at Chapra. …..Defendants-Opposite Parties 2nd set. ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate. For Opp. Party No.1: Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma, Advocate. --------- 2 06/ 12.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for opposite party no.1. 2. This civil revision has been filed by some of the defendants-petitioners challenging order dated 31.08.2007, by which learned Munsif, Saran, rejected their application for hearing the suit in question, namely Title Suit No. 126 of 1989 analogously with Title Suit No. 120 of 2004. 3. The above mentioned Title Suit No. 126 of 1989 was filed by the plaintiff-opposite parties first set against opposite party no.10 the predecessor of the defendants for declaration that the sale-deed dated 15.06.1984 executed by the predecessor of the defendants ( now deceased ) in favour of defendant no.1 as well as opposite party no.10 of the instant civil revision was forged, fabricated, illegal, collusive and inoperative as well as for other ancillary reliefs. 4. It transpires that after about 15 years, the petitioners, who were defendants of the earlier suit filed Title Suit No. 120 of 2004 against one of the plaintiffs of the earlier suit for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession with respect to the same property as was involved in the earlier suit and for other ancillary reliefs. 5. It is not in dispute that in Title Suit No. 126 of 1989 filed by opposite parties first set, pleadings have been completed much earlier, whereafter issues have been framed and evidence of the plaintiffs of that suit is going on. It is also not in dispute that in Title Suit No. 120 of 2004 filed by the petitioners 3 along with others, issues have not yet been framed and even the matter of non-substitution of several parties to that suit was pending on the date of the impugned order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties in both the suits or their interests are common in both the suits and the properties involved as well as the subject matters are also the same and both the suits are pending before the same Court and hence it is necessary for the ends of justice that they be heard analogously. 7. Since, according to the petitioners, parties were the same or were their successors in interest and the subject matters of the suit were also the same, there was no occasion for the petitioners along with others to file Title Suit No. 120 of 2004 subsequently suit and if such a suit had been filed it was affected by the provision of section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Furthermore, stages of both the suits are absolutely different as is apparent from the admitted position and hence there was no occasion for the learned court below to delay the proceeding of Title Suit No.126 of 1989, which is at a quite advance stage, whereas, in the subsequent suit even the issues have not been framed nor hearing has started. Hence, there is no occasion for delaying the disposal of the earlier suit, which is at its fag end. 9. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below 4 nor does it find any irregularity therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed with a direction to the learned court below to expedite the proceeding of Title Suit No. 126 of 1989 as it is about two decades old and to decide the same expeditiously without any further delay. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )