IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.285 of 2008 Amul @ Amit Mahto & Ors Versus Chandra Shekhar Paswan ---------------------------------- 5 26-9-2011 Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in support of the appeal. Undisputed facts are that T.S.No.9 of 2006 had been filed by the sole respondent for declaration of title and also for declaration regarding the compromise decree as not binding being collusive in nature. In the said suit the defendants filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 11(d) and section 11 C.P.C. asserting that the plaint be rejected, as the issues arising in the suit had already been decided in the earlier T.S.No. 3 of 2002 between the same parties. The trial court by its order dated 15-7-2006 allowed the prayer of the defendants and the plaint was rejected. Against the said order the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No. 104 of 2006, which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and decree and this second appeal has been filed by the defendants thereafter. There is no dispute that the earlier T.S.No. 3 of 2002 had been filed impleading the present appellants as 2 defendants by one Ram Prit Choudhary for declaration of title and also for declaration of compromise decree passed in T.S.No. 9 of 2006 as illegal and not binding. The plaintiff of that suit, namely, Ram Prit Choudhary, died during the pendency of the suit. A petition for substitution in his place had been filed by the sole respondent of this appeal, namely, Chandra Shekhar Paswan. This substitution petition was contested by the defendants and ultimately it was dismissed. The revision against the dismissal of the substitution petition had also been dismissed. Thereafter, the sole respondent of the present appeal, Chandra Shekhar Paswan, filed T.S.No. 9 of 2006 impleading the present appellants as defendants and claiming for declaration of title and also seeking relief with regard to the compromise decree. It has been submitted on behalf of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the self same relief has been prayed by Chandra Shekhar Paswan in his suit bearing T.S.No. 9 of 2006 as had been claimed by Ram Prit Choudhary in the earlierT.S.No. 3 of 2002 and thus the appellants or their predecessors had been impleaded as defendants in both the suits. As the finding has been recorded in the earlier T.S.No. 3 of 2002 that Chandra 3 Shekhar Paswan cannot act as a representative of the Bihar State Religious Trust Board and on this basis his claim for substitution in place of the sole plaintiff in that suit had been rejected, therefore, the said Chandra Shekhar Paswan could not maintain the subsequent suit for the same relief. It has been further urged that the appellate court below has committed error of law in misappreciating the facts apparent from the records and has wrongly allowed the appeal rejecting the petition filed by the defendants/appellants. It is not in dispute that the decision against the present sole respondent in earlier T.S.No. 3 of 2002 had been rendered while considering his petition under Order 22 C.P.C. It is well-settled that any enquiry under the provision of Order 22 C.P.C. for determining the status of a person as a legal representative is summary in nature and any finding recorded against the person applying for substitution cannot be used against him in a subsequent suit filed by him asserting the same interest. In a decision in the case of Bhudeo Pandey Vs. Gupteshwar Missir, reported in A.I.R.Patna 537 a Division Beench of this Court had considered this aspect of the matter and has held that the provision of section 11 C.P.C. will not be attracted on the 4 basis of any finding recorded while deciding the dispute regarding the heirs/legal representatives under Order 22 C.P.C.The appellate court below has rightly come to the finding that the provision of section 11 C.P.C. has no application in the present facts and circumstances of the case. There is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed roy ( V. Nath, J.)