IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1877 of 2008 AMARNATH NARAYAN SINGH Versus JITAN SINGH & ORS ----------- 2 14/11/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. What has been done by the Court below is that it has directed for making two suits pertaining to same property analogous to each other which are not only between the same parties but also instituted in the same year. Counsel for the petitioner, however, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ‘Manohar Lal Chopra Vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hirala’ reported in AIR 1962 SC page 527 for advancing his submission that once there was specific provision under section 10 of the staying of the subsequent suit, the provisions made under section 151 of the C.P.C. for making two suits analogous could not have been exercised by the court below. In his 2 opinion such approach of the court below clearly amounts to a jurisdictional error. This Court, however, is not in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner for a plain and simple reason that what was held there in the case of Manohar Lal Chopra (Supra) was that when two suits, first suit was filed at Asansol under section 48 of the Act and other suit was filed at Indaur appertaining to the same dispute, it was necessary that the subsequent suit ought to have been stayed or an application could have been filed for transfer of the proceeding of the subsequent suit for its analogous hearing with the former suit. If the Court below has adopted the second recourse as held by the Apex Court, this Court must not come in the way as definitely such order cannot be held to be vitiated by any jurisdictional error. That being so, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, ) Abhay Kumar 3