IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.351 of 2008 Mohan Sao, alias Mohan Sao son of late Dwarika Sao, resident of Muhalla Dariayapur (Birala Mandir Road), Jan Vitran Pranali Dukan in front of Veterinary Hospital, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Pirhabore, District Patna. ….Plaintiff-petitioner. Versus 1. Mostt. Indrawati Lal alias Indrawati Lall, wife of late Banarsi Lal 2. Smt. Reshmi, wife of Shri Prasant Kumar, d/o late Banarsi Lal resident of resident of Muhalla Dariayapur (Birala Mandir Road), Jan Vitran Pranali Dukan in front of Veterinary Hospital, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Pirhabore, District Patna. 3. Kumari Sweta Kashyap 4. Kumari Rachana Kashyap, daughters of late Banarsi Lal resident of Muhalla Dariayapur (Birala Mandir Road), Jan Vitran Pranali Dukan in front of Veterinary Hospital, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Pirhabore, District Patna. …Defendants-opposite parties. -------- For the petitioner : M/s Mahesh Prasad No.2 and Rewati Kant Raman, Advocates. For Opp. Parties : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate -------- 04/ 28.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This civil revision is being finally heard at this stage with consent of learned counsel for both the parties, namely, the plaintiff-petitioner and defendants-opposite parties. 3. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner challenging order dated 05.01.2008, by which learned Subordinate Judge-III, Patna, rejected his petition under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code’ for the sake of brevity ) filed in Title Suit No. 246 of 2004 for restraining Ashok Kumar Gupta alias Manoj Kumar, the attorney of the defendants, from taking any wrong step pertaining to the suit properties, including the shop in question. 2 4. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff- petitioner for specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement for sale dated 17.10.2003, said to have been executed by Banarsi Lal, deceased predecessor of the defendants-opposite parties, in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. The said suit has been contested by the defendants-opposite parties and issues have already been framed whereafter it is pending for evidence. 5. It also transpires that subsequently Title Eviction suit No. 33 of 2004 was filed by the opposite parties for eviction of the petitioner from a house, which was the sole subject matter of that eviction suit and which is one of the properties involved in the title suit for specific performance of contract. The said eviction suit was decreed ex parte by the learned court below on 27.11.2006. Against the aforesaid ex parte decree, Misc. Case No. 1 of 2007 has been filed by the petitioner under the provision of Order IX of the Code, which is also pending before learned Subordinate Judge-III, Patna. 6. It further transpires that in Title Suit No. 246 of 2004, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, read with section 151 of the Code for restraining the defendants from taking forcible possession of the suit house and land and from selling, mortgaging and transferring the same and also from forcibly changing the physical feature of the suit properties till the disposal of the title suit. The said interlocutory application was dismissed by a reasoned order by the learned court below on 04.05.2007. The said order was not 3 challenged by the plaintiff-petitioner rather on 30.10.2007 he filed another interlocutory application in the court below under the provision of section 151 of the Code praying that the defendants may be restrained from evicting the plaintiff from the properties involved in the title suit through any wrong and improper manner. The said interlocutory application has been rejected by the learned court below by order dated 05.01.2008 of the learned court below, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 7. From the averments of the parties and from the facts and circumstances of the case including materials on record, it is quite apparent that the eviction suit was filed with respect to only a house but the title suit is pending with respect to the said house along with other properties also. Furthermore, since the petitioner is admittedly in possession of the house in question, which is the subject matter of both the eviction suit and the title suit and the opposite parties have already taken steps for the eviction of the petitioner through the process of the court and hence they cannot legally take forcible possession of the said house except through the process of law. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties emphatically stated that neither they have ever intended, nor they are intending to take over any forcible possession of the suit house as they have been through out taking recourse to law for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises, which is still continuing, although it is being unnecessarily delayed by the petitioner. 4 9. So far the remaining properties involved in the title suit except the suit house are concerned, the question of possession is disputed. Both parties are claiming possession over the same and are denying possession of the other party on one ground or the other and even the alleged agreement for sale relied upon by the petitioner is under challenge in the title suit. 10. In any view of the matter, it is quite apparent that the earlier injunction petition having already been rejected by the learned court below, there was no occasion for the learned court below to entertain the second petition of the plaintiff for a similar relief of status quo. 11. In the aforesaid directions and observations, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )