IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2455 of 2011 RAJ KISHORE PRASAD Versus SHAMBHU SAH & ANR ----------- 05. 06.05.2011 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial-court is directed to decide the question of title first then to proceed with the trial as the title has been disputed by newly added defendant. It is hereby clarified that the title dispute is between the newly added defendant No.2 and the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in 1998 PLJR (2) 601, 2004 PLJR(1) 28 and 2004 PLJR(1) 763. In all these cases the observation is made on the third party, which clearly indicates that third party who has no title. In all these cases the third party has been denied to file a counter claim by impleading a defendant wherein the tenant did not dispute the title. Here in the present case the tenant has denied the title of the petitioner in his W.S. Therefore, the intervener, who claims to be landlord. Stand of the intervener is supported just for the reason that in the 2 preceding petition of this judgment, I have directed the trial-court to decide the question of title between the intervener and the plaintiff first then to proceed with the eviction suit. Reference of third party in the judgment cited (supra) appears to have been used as the tenant might not have denied the title. In the meantime, the tenant shall deposit the rent in Court and defendant’s application shall be decided by the trial-court within a period of one month from today. With the above observation the petition is disposed of. Mkr. ( Prakash Chandra Verma, J. )