IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1964 of 2008 JIBAN KUMAR DAS @ JEEVAN KUMAR DAS Versus MD. GOFRAN KHAN@GUFRAN KHAN&OR ----------- C.R. No.1965 of 2008 JIBAN KUMAR DAS @ JEEVAN KUAMR DAS Versus KAPILDEV PD.YADAV & ORS ----------- 2. 27.11.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Mainly because the two suits seeking decree of specific performance involve the interest of the petitioner, the purchaser of the property, cannot be a ground for amalgamating the two suits. As a matter of fact the court has given a cogent reason for refusing such prayer which reads as follows: ^^mHk; i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks lquus o LoRo okn la[;k 120@03 o izLrqr okn dk voyksdu djus ij eSa ;g ikrk gwW fd nksuksas okn ds oknh i~Fkd&i~Fkd gS vkSj nksuksa okn esa ftl lafonk ds fof’k"V vuqikyu ds fy, okn yk;k x;k gS muds i{kdkj Hkh i`Fkd gSA vr% Li"V :i ls ,slh fLFkfr esa nksuksa okn dk vkil esa lek;ksftr dj lek;ksftr okn ¿ ,ukyksXl À ds :i esa fuLrkj.k fd;s tkus dk izFke nz"V;k dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gSA vr%,slh fLFkfr esa izLrqr vkosnu dh vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA** Counsel for the petitioner was quite vehement in his submission that the aforementioned finding recorded is based on 2 error or record. However, when confronted which part is error of record and from which document he would like to demonstrate the same, he is absolutely answerless because he has not annexed the copy of the relevant record. That apart the suit which was filed by Kapildeo Yadav being T.S.No. 120/2003 seeking enforcement of an agreement for sale dated 30.6.1997 cannot be said to be pending between the same parties because in the subsequent suit No. 213/2004 filed by Md. Gufran Khan and others Kapildeo Yadav is not a party. The two persons may be claiming the same land through two different agreement for sale but that cannot be a ground for making the two suits analogous. Merely because the same may serve the interest of the purchaser whose sale deed is at stake in both the suits, will be of no consequence for making the two suits analogous. This Court, therefore, would find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, both the civil revision applications are dismissed. Surendra/ (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)