IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.581 of 2006 RAM SWARUP PRASAD CHAURASIA @ RAM SWAROOP MANDAL Versus SONEY LAL SAHU & ORS. ----------- 6 21.10.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the Court below having acted in conformity with the earlier direction of this Court in the order dated 29.4.1999 in C.R. No. 1733 of 1997, cannot be said to have committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order so as to be interfered by this Court in this civil revision application. An eviction suit of the year 1994 came to be decreed by the Court below on 19.9.1997 but such a decree was reversed by a judgment of this court dated 29.4.1999 in C.R. No. 1733 of 1997 with the following direction:- “(i) Parties to the proceeding should be given opportunity to prove or disprove the Kerayanama which is the basis of relationship between the parties. (ii) If the Kerayanama is not found to be proper and genuine then in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned court below shall ask the plaintiff to convert the eviction proceeding into a regular title suit and then the trial should proceed afresh on payment of proper court fee etc. in accordance with law.” 2 The petitioner had assailed the aforementioned judgment of this court before the Apex Court in S.L.P. No. 11907 of 1999 which was disposed of with certain observations dated 27.8.1999 which also needs to be quoted and reads as follows:- “We see no reason to interfere under Article 136. This is only a case of remand and we understand the order of the High Court to mean that the trial court would decide as to whether the petitioner herein has established a right to maintain the application for eviction and that the Kerayanama is only one of the pieces of evidence in this regard.” Thereafter, the matter went back to the Trial Court and the judgment was passed on 3.8.2001. This time the suit was dismissed holding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant on the basis of the alleged Kirayanama. Such judgment of the Trial Court dated 3.8.2001 was again made subject matter of the C.R. No. 1792 of 2001 which was disposed of by an order dated 10.2.2003 with the following direction:- “It means that the Kerayanama (Ext.8) has not been executed between the plaintiff and the defendants. On the basis of the Kerayanama (Ext.8) the relationship of land-lord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants does not prove. The plaintiff has failed to establish his right to maintain application for eviction on the basis of the Kerayanama i.e. Ext.8.” 3 Now when the Trial Court has passed its order in terms of the aforementioned order of this Court dated 10.2.2003, the petitioner-plaintiff makes a grievance that there could not be an order to the effect directing him to convert the eviction suit to a regular title suit after payment of ad-valorem court fee. Such argument of the Counsel for the petitioner is fit to be rejected because an inter-parte judgment and order dated 29.4.1999 which stood affirmed to the extent mentioned above by the Apex Court in the order dated 27.8.1999 and further clarified by this Court in the order dated 10.2.2003 in no uncertain terms had given direction to the Court below to either decree the suit by holding a relationship of landlord and tenant or in the alternative relegate the plaintiff petitioner to convert the eviction suit into a regular title suit upon payment of Ad-valorem Court Fee. That must be the essence of the impugned order dated 29.4.1999 in C.R. No. 1733/1977 which in the opinion of this Court has not been in any way watered down either by the order of the Supreme Court or the subsequent order of this Court dated 10.2.2003. In presence of the aforesaid findings, when the Court below in the impugned order had noted that upon perusal of the evidence of the plaintiff, the relationship of landlord and tenant was not established, the Court 4 below had no option but to comply the aforementioned order of the High Court. That being so, this Court would find no error much less jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The next submission of the Counsel for the petitioner that such finding of there being any relationship of landlord and tenant in the impugned order is based only on the consideration of the documentary evidence without taking into account the oral evidence on this issue. It is well settled that the documentary evidence has to be always given preference to the oral evidence especially on the point of relationship of landlord and tenant and thus when the Court below was under the direction of this Court to find out the relationship of landlord and tenant and it has gone to decide the same in a graphic manner, the same cannot be set aside only because the court below had relied on documentary evidence in preference to oral evidence, which will have in fact no bearing on the crucial issue. That being so, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, this civil revision application being devoid of any merit, must be, and is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)