IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1071 of 2006 RAMCHANDAR SAO Versus SMT.SANYUKTA DEVI & ANR ----------- 3 20.11.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice on the opposite parties no one has appeared on their behalf. In the opinion of this Court the impugned order rejecting prayer of the defendant-petitioner for staying the eviction suit (Title Eviction Suit No. 3 of 2001) on the ground of pendency of earlier Title Suit No. 120 of 1999 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the court below ought to have stayed the subsequent suit, Eviction Suit No. 3 of 2001, in as much as, the earlier suit, Title Suit No. 120 of 1999 between the same parties as with regard to some properties was still pending, by following the mandate of section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is wholly misconceived. The scope of Title Suit No. 120 of 1999 is confined to declaration of title and confirmation of possession in favour of the plaintiff Ramchandar Sao who is the petitioner in this case, but the principal defendant therein is Most. Majda Khatoon and Md. Mushtaque Khan @ Barister as would be apparent from a copy of the - 2 - plaint of Title Suit No. 120 of 1999, Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. In the plaint of that Title Suit No. 120 of 1999 a decree for declaration of title and confirmation of possession has been sought only against the aforementioned Most. Majda Khatoon and Md. Mushtaque Khan @ Barister, whereas, in the eviction suit filed by Smt. Sanyukta Devi and Smt. Suchinta Devi against Ramhandar Sao, petitioner in this case, prayer is for eviction of the petitioner in which Most. Majda Khatoon and Md. Mushtaque Khan @ Barister had not even been initially made party. Thus, merely because the plaintiff-petitioner of Title Suit No. 120 of 1999, petitioner of this case, subsequently on 9.8.2006 during pendency of Eviction Suit No. 3 of 2001 had impleaded Smt. Sanyukta Devi and Smt. Suchinta Devi, as defendant second set in Title Suit no. 120 of 1999, will not give him right to also seek stay of eviction suit in as much as no relief was claimed against aforesaid two ladies in Title Suit no. 120 of 1999. As a matter of fact, the scope of title suit and the eviction suit are altogether different and the decision in the subsequent suit in no way would create a cloud on the alleged title of the petitioner in Title Suit no. 120 of 1999. It is well settled that any incidental finding with regard to the suit property in the eviction suit cannot - 3 - stand as a bar in a separate suit involving question of title. In that view of the matter, when no relief has been sought against the plaintiffs-opposite parties of the eviction suit in the title suit filed by the petitioner, it cannot be even remotely suggested that the issues of two suits are directly and substantially the same and between the same parties. Consequently, the court below has not committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting such prayer of the petitioner. That being so, this Civil Revision Application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Bibhash/Abhay (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)