1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.395 of 2007 1. Shyamdeo Paswan 2. Basudeo Paswan, Both sons of Bakhori Paswan, residents of village Shahpur, Bahapar, P.O./P.S. Bakhtiyarpur, District Patna. …Defendants- Petitioners. -versus- 1. Md. Mustgaq 2. Md. Anish, Both sons of Allah Rakhu, residents of village Shahpur Bahapr, P.S. Bakhtiyarpur, District Patna, at present Naya Bazar, Dhanbad, P.O.+P.S.+District Dhanabad. …Plaintiffs-Opposite 1st Parties. 3. Ravi Paswan 4. Bocha Paswan 5. Bhola Paswan 6. Santosh Paswan, All minor sons of Basudeo Paswan(natural guardian). 7. Supendra Paswan 8. Ganauri Paswan Both sons of Shyamdeo Paswan 9. Guddu Paswan, minor son of Shyamdeo Paswan (natural guardian) All residents of Shahpur Bahapar, P.S./P.O.-Bakhtiyarpur,District Patna. ….Defendants-Opposite 2nd Parties. ------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh, Advocate. For the Opp. Parties : None. ------ 03/ 06.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendants-petitioners challenging order dated 29.11.2006, by which learned Munsif, Barh (Patna) rejected their application under Order VII Rule 11, read with Order XIV Rule 2 of the of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code’ for the sake of brevity ) for returning or rejecting the plaint as, according to them, learned Munsif had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant suit bearing Title Suit No. 84 of 2000 is with respect to 10 kathas of plot 2 no. 466, whereas, another 10 kathas of the same plot is the subject matter of another suit bearing Title Suit No. 14 of 2003 in which the defendants are the same and the plaint of that suit was returned by the learned Munsif to the petitioners for filing it before the court of proper pecuniary jurisdiction and, thereafter, the said plaint was filed before the learned Subordinate Judge, which is pending before the learned Subordinate Judge III, Barh. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said order passed in Title Suit No. 14 of 2003 was on the basis of two deeds; one of 2002 in which the value of two kathas of land was shown to be Rs.28,000.00 and the other is of 2001 in which value of one katha land was shown to be Rs.23,000.00. Hence he submits that the instant Title Suit No. 64 of 2000 having been filed on 16.12.2000 and the sale-deeds being of the same period, similar order should have been passed in the instant suit as had been passed in the subsequent title suit bearing Title Suit No.14 of 2003. 5. From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned court below has very carefully gone into the said question raised by the defendants-petitioners and came to the conclusion that there is no document, which shows valuation of the suit land on the date of filing of the instant suit in the year 2000 nor there is any document to show the valuation of the suit land prior to the filing of Title Suit No. 64 of 2000. 6. It is further noted that the two sale deeds produced by the defendants were of 2001 and 2002, which were of a subsequent date on the basis of which the valuation of an earlier suit cannot be ordered. It was also found by the learned court below that the sale-deeds of 2001 and 2002 3 were of dates prior to the filing of the other suit bearing Title Suit No. 14 of 2003 and hence the court, before which the said suit was pending, was quite justified in accepting the valuation of the sale-deeds and returning the plaint to the plaintiff of that suit. In the said circumstances, it has been held by the learned court below that the order passed in Title Suit No. 14 of 2003 cannot be followed in the instant suit bearing Title Suit No. 64 of 2000. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the impugned order of the learned court below cannot be held illegal or beyond jurisdiction. This civil revision is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. However, it is an admitted position that in Title Suit No. 64 of 2000 as well as in Title Suit No. 14 of 2003 , the plot in question and the defendants are the same and according to the petitioners, the points/issues involved are also the same and hence the defendants- petitioners are given liberty to file a petition before the learned District Judge, Patna under the provision of section 24 of the Code for transferring Title Suit No. 64 of 2000 from the court of the learned Munsif, Barh to the court of learned Subordinate Judge-III, Barh where Title Suit No.14 of 2003 is pending for their analogous hearing, as there should not be conflicting judgments in similar matters by two courts. If such a petition is filed within one month, the learned District Judge shall consider the matter and pass appropriate order expeditiously in accordance with law. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )