IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.695 of 2010 1. DINANATH GUPTA, S/o Uma Charan Sah. 2. Rajiv Kumar Gupta @ Raju Kr. Gupta. 3. Sajiv Kr. Gupta @ Sanju Kr. Gupta. Both are sons of Sri Dinanath Gupta. All are resident of village+P.O.-Kantakosh, P.S.- Manihari, District-Katihar….Defendant 1st Party/Respondent/Appellants. Versus 1. RAMANAND GUPTA. 2. Bishwanath Gupta. Both are sons of Late Baldeo Sah @ Baldeo Pd. Gupta. Both resident of Village+P.O.-Kantakosh, P.S.-Manihari, District- Katihar…Deft. 2nd Set/Respondent/Respondents. 3. Baidnath Prasad, S/o Late lal Mohan Sah. R/o village+P.O. Kantakosh, P.S.-Manihari, District-Katihar…Plaintiff/Appellant..Respondents. 4. Jagarnath Gupta, S/o Late Lal Mohan Sah. 5. Dev Rani Gupta, W/o Late Ram Lochan Gupta. 6. Sumit Kr. Gupta. 7. Amit Kumar Gupta. 8. Punit Kumar Gupta. 9. Bhawna Gupta. All are sons and daughters of Late Ram Lochan Gupta. All R/o village+P.O.-Kantakosh, P.S.-Manihari, District- Katihar….Defendants 2nd Set/Respondents/Respondent. with MA No.671 of 2010 1. DINANATH GUPTA, S/o Uma Charan Sah. 2. Rajiv Gupta @ Raju Kr. Gupta. 3. Sanjiv Gupta @ Sanju Kr. Gupta. Both sons of Sri Dinanath Gupta. All are R/o Vill+P.O.-Kantakosh, P.S.-Manihari, District-Katihar…..Defendant 1st party/Respondents/Appellants. Versus 1. BAIDYANATH PRASAD, S/o Late Lal Mohan Sah, R/o Village+P.O.- Kantokosh, P.S.-Manihari, District- Katihar….Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondents. 2. Jagar Nath Gupta, S/o Lal Mohan Sah. 3. Dev Rani Gupta, W/o Late Ram Lochan Gupta. 4. Sumit Kr. Gupta. 5. Amit Kumar Gupta. 6. Punit Kumar Gupta. 7. Bhawna Gupta. All are sons and daughters of Late Ram Lochan Gupta. 8. Rama Nand Gupta. 9. Bishwanath Gupta. Both are sons of Late Baldeo Sah. All R/o Vill+P.O. Kantakosh, P.S. Manihari, District-Katihar. ……..Defendant 2nd Set/Respondents/Respondents. ------------ 06. 27.01.2011 The appellants are aggrieved with the judgment 2 and order dated 31.05.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge-II, Katihar in Title Appeal Nos. 15 of 2009/09 of 2009 and 14 of 2009/08 of 2009 arising out of Partition Suit Nos. 60 of 2003 and 59 of 2003 respectively. The history of the case is that the partition suit was dismissed whereafter an appeal was preferred which was remanded to the Court below for fresh consideration. After advancing the arguments for a while the parties agreed that the entire matter including the question of admissibility and consequential matters be decided by the Trial Court. Since the parties are in agreement with the terms, I have no hesitation in directing the Trial Court to consider the matter afresh including that of maintainability of the suit and pass appropriate orders upon the same. With these observations, the appeals are disposed off. Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)