IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2465 of 2007 SHYAM BABU PRASAD Versus CHINTAN JAIN & ORS ----------- 4 01.09.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner on an earlier occasion has submitted that the impugned order dated 4.10.2007 being in two parts. He had filed two Civil Revision applications namely the present one and Civil Revision No.124 of 2008. On such submission, this Court had directed for listing of Civil Revision No. 124 of 2007 vide order dated 28.8.2008. Today, when the records of Civil Revision No. 124 of 2008 has been placed before this Court, it is found that the same has already been dismissed on account of non- compliance of the peremptory order dated 26.2.2008. It has to be noted that by the one common order dated 4.10.2007 an application filed by the plaintiff, opposite party dated 21.9.2007 as with regard to admitting certain documents (counterfoil of rent receipt) in evidence have been allowed and in the same order the prayer of the defendant- petitioner for analogous trial of Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2005 and Title Suit No. 494 of 2005 has been rejected. The order of the Court below as with regard to allowing of the evidence to be led by the plaintiff-opposite party being the subject matter of Civil Revision No. 124 of 2008 has already stood 2 affirmed by dismissal of said Civil Revision application. The only question which now remains to be decided by this Court as with regard to the part of impugned order is confined to the rejection of the prayer of the defendant-petitioner, for making the Eviction Suit No.1 of 2005 analogous with Title Suit No. 494 of 2005. In the opinion of this Court, the Court below has rightly rejected the such prayer of the petitioner after recording that the relief of Title Suit No. 494 of 2005 was altogether different. The Court below has further taken into account that such a prayer for making the two suits analogous had earlier been rejected by a separate interparte order passed in Title Suit No. 494 of 2005 which had also become final. The reasoning given by the Court below that there was no occasion for analogous trial of both the suits as they are different in nature and there is also want of similarity in reliefs, parties and stage of the suit, cannot be held to be jurisdictional error. Moreover, when an earlier order passed to this effect in Title Suit No. 494 of 2005 had not been assailed by the petitioner, he cannot be now allowed to question the same order on its being repeated in Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2005. In fact, it would become clear that such an application seeking analogous hearing of Title Suit No. 494 of 2005 with Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2005 was a mere ploy simply in order to delay disposal of the eviction 3 suit which has to be disposed of by way of a summary proceeding in terms of Section 11 read with Section 14 of the B.B.C. Act. The plaintiff, opposite party being the landlord seeking only a relief of eviction in the present suit (Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2005) in which his evidence is at the verge of completion cannot be made to wait till the time, the Title Suit No. 494 of 2005 becomes ready for hearing. In that view of the matter, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order rejecting the application of the defendant, petitioner to make the present suit, Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2005 analogous to Title Suit No. 494 of 2005. Accordingly, this Civil Revision application is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)