IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 12069 OF 2011 Sumesh Kumar @Sumesh Prasad ------ ------------Defendant / Petitioner Versus Smt. Sushila Devi & Ors -------------------Plaintiffs / Respondent ******** Dated : day of August, 2011 P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO O R D E R 05. 30.08.2011. 1. Heard the learned senior counsel, Mr. Dhruv Narayan Singh on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Narendra Roy on behalf of the respondent. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 04.04.2011 passed by Munsif Ist, Chapra in Eviction Suit No.12 of 2005. The plaintiffs-respondents filed this eviction suit No.12 of 2005 against the petitioner for eviction on the ground of personal necessity only. 3. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that at the time of hearing of the eviction suit, the petitioner contended that another eviction suit filed - 2 - by the plaintiffs-respondents against the petitioner which is pending in the Court of Sub Judge on the ground of defaulter should also be heard along with this eviction suit. It was also contended that title suit No.88 of 2005 filed by the petitioner for restraining the present plaintiff from forcibly evicting the petitioner may also be heard with the present eviction suit. By the impugned order, the learned Court below rejected the said oral prayer. The petitioner has filed this writ application against the said rejection order. 4. Admittedly, as has been admitted by the petitioner in paragraph 8 of this writ application, the present suit has been filed against the petitioner for eviction on the ground of personal necessity only. The other suit which has been filed by the plaintiff- respondent is on the ground of default which is pending in the Court of Sub Judge and the suit filed by the present petitioner is that the plaintiff should not forcefully evict him. Considering these aspects of the matter, the learned Court below rejected the prayer to hear all three suits analogously. 5. Since the suit for personal necessity is to be tried by special procedure as provided under BBC Act and the other suits are to be tried like any other suit and the appeal and second appeal will be followed whereas in the suit for personal requirement, the tenant - 3 - has only right to file revision if the suit is decreed. In view of the above fact, in my opinion, the learned Court below has rightly refused to hear the other suits analogously as it will prejudice the rights of the parties. 6. In view of the above facts, in my opinion, the impugned order cannot be interfered with in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Patna High Court, Patna The 30thday of August, 2011 Sanjeev/N.A.F.R. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)