IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.271 of 2009 1. AMIRUZZAMAN @ MD.AMIR, 2. Wahid Alam @ Md. Wahid, and 3. Md. Abdullah, all sons of late Bediuzzaman, residents of Sadudagar Mohalla – Loharpatti Road, Ward no. 12, P.S. & Distt.– Kishanganj…………………………....Defendants/Petitioners. Versus 1. MANIK CHAND BINAKIA, 2. Raj Kumar Binakia, both sons of Late Amirchand Binakia, residents of Kishanganj Town Ward no. 15, Sonarpatti Raod, P.S. and Distt. Kishanganj……….Plaintiffs/Opposite parties, 3. Masoda Perween, 4. Tahura Perween, 5. Sabahat Bano, 6. Zarmused Fatima, 7. Noor Saba Perween, 8. Ruhizzaman, all daughters of late Badiuzzaman, residents of Saudagar Mohalla – Loharpatti Road, Ward No. 12, P.S. and District – Kishanganj, and 9. Narain Prasad Gupta, son of late Ram Narayan Gupta, resident of Loharpatti Road, P.S. and District Kishanganj….Defendants / Opposite parties. ----------- 3. 03.03.2009. Mr. R.K. Agrawal, learned counsel appears and files power on behalf of opposite parties no. 1 and 2. Heard Mr. Rashid Alam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no. 1 and 2. The defendants-petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2008 passed by the Munsif 1st, Kishanganj, in Eviction Suit No. 01/2000. - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the defendants – petitioners have filed written statement and have refuted the statement made in the plaint that there exists a landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants. He further submits that Title Suit No. 01/2000 was filed by the defendants – petitioner no. 3 for specific performance of contract and the plaintiff and others are defendants therein. However, the aforesaid title suit was dismissed and Title Appeal No. 13/2004 has been preferred by these defendants – petitioners, which is pending before the District Judge, Purnea. In view of the above, it is contended that it is a fit case for consolidation and joint hearing of both the cases together. I do not find any force into the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Apart from being cases of different nature, Title Suit No. 18/2000 already having been dismissed and the appeal thereof being pending, no question arises for consolidation of such appeal arising out of a suit for specific performance of contract and a suit filed by the landlord for eviction of a tenant. Thus, this Court does not find any jurisdictional - 3 - error in the impugned order dated 23.12.2008. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )