IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.665 of 2008 1.ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA @ ASHOK MISHRA 2.Mantu Mishra 3.Pawan Mishra all sons of Ashok Kumar Mishra, All resident of Mohalla- B.K.Road, Time House, Laheriasarai, P.S.+P.O.- Laheriasarai, District- Darbhanga ….Petitioners Versus DR. SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, S/o Late Yamuna Prasad, R/o Mohalla- Bankers Colony, Rahamganj, P.S. + P.O. Laheriasarai, District- Darbhanga ……. Opp.Party ----------- 2. 01/05/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This revision application has been filed by the defendants-petitioner against order dated 15.2.2008 passed by learned Munsif-I, Darbhanga in Eviction Suit No.8/07. By the said order, learned court below has rejected the petition of the defendants filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint. Learned court below has found that no sufficient ground has been made out in the said petition and the suit has been filed on the ground of personal necessity for which only summary proceeding has to be adopted. This Court has also perused the petition filed by the defendants under Order VII rule 11 - 2 - C.P.C., a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-2 to this revision application. From the said petition, it is apparent that the same is very perfunctory and poorly drafted. From the petition it is apparent that no substantial ground has been made out for consideration by the court at this stage for a direction of rejection of the plaint. Therefore, the petition has been rightly rejected by learned court below by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the same property a number of suits are pending between the parties from before. He also submits that serious dispute of title and dispute of relationship of landlord and tenant has been raised by the defendants in his written statement and therefore, as per the law settled by judgments of this court reported in 1999(2) PLJR 148 and 2008(2) PLJR 449, learned court below was duty bound to direct the plaintiffs to get their title decided in a properly constituted title suit. The impugned order is only of rejection of petition of the defendants filed under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. It is not the stage either to - 3 - reject the plaint of the suit on the ground of dispute of relationship of landlord and tenant or to compel the plaintiff to file a proper title suit for declaration of his title. It has to be established by evidence that there is bonafide dispute of title between the parties and relationship of landlord and tenant is not established up to the hilt for deciding the suit, and then only the court dealing with the eviction suit will be justified in law to direct either of the parties to get the title decided in a properly constituted title suit or dismiss the suit. This Court is rest assured that as and when such situation arises, the learned court below will consider the matter in accordance with law. With the above observations and directions, this revision application is disposed of. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)