IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.981 of 2008 PARSHURAM PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4 05.08.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order passed by the Court below, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the petitioner has been dismissed holding it to be not maintainable in its exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. The Court below has taken into account that the suit was filed to set aside an ex-parte decree dated 14.12.2004 in Title Suit No. 80 of 2003 as also for passing an order of injunction to stay the proceedings of Execution Case No. 6 of 2005 arising out of Title Suit No. 80 of 2003. The detailed analysis made by the Court below in the impugned order itself goes to show that the petitioner had initially filed Misc. Case No. 5 of 2005 under Order IX Rule 13 as against the ex-parte decree dated 14.12.2004 in Title Suit No. 80 of 2003 which was dismissed due to default on 7.4.2007 and in fact another Misc. Case No. 3 of 2008 to restore the aforementioned Misc. Case No. 5 of 2005 was also dismissed on 7.3.2008 holding the same to be not maintainable. The Court - 2 - below has noted that Misc. Case No. 5 of 2005 was filed in the Court of IInd Munsif, Arrah for setting aside the ex-parte order in Title Suit No. 80 of 2003 and instead of moving that Court the petitioner has moved the Court below, the Court of IIIrd Munsif, Arrah by suppressing relevant facts including the judgment and decree of Title Suit No. 80 of 2003 which was the document on which the petitioner had sued and had brought the present suit, Title Suit No. 22 of 2008. In such view of the matter, when the Court below in the impugned order has found the suit to be not maintainable, this Court in exercise of its power under Section 115 of C.P.C. would not permit the petitioner to re-open the chapter as the remedy for the petitioner against the ex-parte order was before that very Court which had passed such ex-parte order in Title Suit No. 80 of 2003. This Court is further of the view that the petitioner has abused the process of Court in course of filing the present suit and consequently, the impugned order cannot be held to be bad on any account. Consequently, there is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)