IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1970 of 2008 SAWARU RAI Versus JUMA DEVI & ORS ----------- 2 1/12/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court when specific plea was taken by the petitioner that the entire suit would not abate, in as much as, part of Schedule-II property sought to be partitioned had also a plot no. 458 with the residential house standing thereon, a fact which was also supported from paragraph no. 15 of the plaint, it was all the more necessary for the Court to examine as to whether the entire suit abate or at least suit could be continued in respect of the residential house standing on plot no. 458. This Court would find that a specific plea in this regard, though having been raised on behalf of the petitioner before the Court below as noted in the impugned order has not been answered while holding the entire suit would abate. In that view of the matter, this Court would set aside the impugned order 2 with a direction to the court below to reconsider the whole matter afresh and pass an order in accordance with law. This order, however, will not taken to be an authority for reopening of the impugned order with regard to agricultural land either in Schedule-I or in Schedule-II of the plaint and its decision would be confined to plot no. 458 with a house standing thereon. With the aforementioned directions/ observations this application is allowed only to the extent indicated above. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar