IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.376 of 2009 Ram Sewak Mahto, son of late Laxmi Mahto, resident of Village- Gopalpur, Police Station-Vidyapati Nagar, District- Samastipur ---- Defendant/Petitioner. Versus 1. Dharamlal Mahto 2. Sukhdeo Mahto, both are sons of Ram Lagan Mahto, resident of Village- Mirjapurganj, Tola Gopalpur, Police Station-Vidyapati Nagar, District- Samastipur --- Plaintiffs/opposite parties Ist set. 3. Rajaram, son of late Laxmi Mahto 4. Satish @ Ramdeo Mahto, son of late Laxmi Mahto, both are resident of Village-Gopalpur, Police Station-Vidyapati Nagar, District- Samastipur --- Defendants/Opposite Parties 2nd Set. ---------------------------------- 5. 22.11.2011 Heard Mr. Md. Waliur Rahman for the petitioner. This revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the defendant of Redemption Suit No. 4 of 2007, passed by the learned Munsif, Dalsinghsarai, Samastipur, whereby his application under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to stay further proceedings in redemption suit until disposal of Title Appeal No. 42 of 1991, has been rejected. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner’s father (Laxmi Mahto) instituted Title Suit No. 46 of 1984, for a direction to the defendants of 2 that suit (Bhola Prasad and others) to hand over registered sale deed to the plaintiff failing which certified copy of the sale deed may be declared to be the registered deed of absolute sale. The suit was dismissed by the judgment dated 5.5.1984, leading to Title Appeal No.42 of 1991, preferred by Laxmi Mahto, who died and has been substituted by the present petitioner. In the meantime, the defendants of said Title Suit No. 46 of 1984, instituted the present Redemption Suit No.4 of 2007, which is still pending in the civil court at Dalsinghsarai. The defendants of the said Title Suit No.46 of 1984 have instituted the aforesaid redemption suit to release the property in mortgage with the plaintiff’s of Title Suit no. 46 of 1984, and is pending in the civil court at Dalsinghsarai. Learned counsel for the present petitioner had prayed before the learned trial court that further proceedings in the redemption suit may be stayed under the provisions of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure till the disposal of Title Appeal No. 42 of 1991, which has been rejected by the impugned order. On a consideration of the materials on record, we agree with the impugned order. The appropriate direction 3 should be that the redemption suit may be disposed of most expeditiously so that the possible appeal may be taken up along with Title Appeal No. 42 of 1991. In the result, the civil revision application is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.)