IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13565 of 2011 Singheshwar Beldar Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 2 23.08.2011 The respondent No.1, The State of Bihar is not necessary party. Therefore, it is deleted. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant petitioner, who is a tenant in the suit premises, against the order dated 24.3.2011 passed by Munsif 1st, Begusarai in Title Eviction Suit No. 8 of 2006 whereby the learned court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner to stay the Eviction Suit No. 8 of 2006 under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure till the disposal of the partition suit i.e. Title Suit No. 188 of 1997 pending in the court of Sub Judge 5th, Begusarai. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that partition suit has been filed by Rajendra Kumar Agarwal against Ravindra Nath Agarwal which is pending for final disposal after remand by the High Court. The plaintiff of Eviction Suit No. 8 of 2006 is Ajay Kumar who is a purchaser from Ravindra Kumar who is plaintiff of partition suit i.e. the landlord of the present defendant petitioner and he is paying rent to him. Therefore, the petitioner filed the application for stay of further proceeding in eviction suit till the disposal of the partition suit. 2 From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned court below found that this suit is an eviction suit and plaintiff has already concluded his evidence and the date was fixed for adducing evidence on behalf of the petitioner but instead of producing any evidence this application has been filed. It appears that in partition suit this petitioner is not a party nor he is a co- sharer admittedly, his status is that of tenant. He is challenging the title of the plaintiff on the ground that in fact the plaintiff of partition suit is his landlord and the present plaintiff is not his landlord and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the petitioner, therefore, the question to be decided in partition suit is different than the question to be decided in the eviction suit. If the plaintiff will not be able to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant then automatically the eviction suit will be dismissed but in my opinion under Section 10 C.P.C. further proceeding of eviction suit cannot be stayed on the ground of partition suit between the co-sharer is pending and the plaintiff is purchaser from one co-sharer. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India. Therefore, this application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)