IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1916 of 2005 BIRENDRA PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA Versus CHANDRIKA DATT TIWARY & ORS ----------- 11 15.07.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the opposite parties. Counsel for the defendant petitioner in Title Suit No. 170 of 1999 while assailing the order impugned dated 8.9.2005 contends that as a matter of fact, there are three suits namely, Title Suit No. 162 of 1998, Title Suit No. 170 of 1999 and Title Suit No. 262 of 1999 wherein the question with regard to the validity and correctness of a decree of Title Suit No. 280 of 1938 dated 26.3.1939 and the consequential auction sale dated 02.03.1941 and delivery of possession on 02.03.1941 are the gravemen and sum and substance in all the aforementioned three suits. He, therefore, submits that the Court below in all fairness ought to have stayed the subsequent suit being Title Suit No. 170 of 1999 which has been filed by the purchasers claiming their rights that they had acquired a valid title on the basis of aforementioned auction purchase and delivery of possession. On the other hand, counsel for the plaintiff opposite parties has drawn attention towards an order dated 2.11.2004 wherein a prayer to the same effect for staying the subsequent suit No. 262 of 1999 was refused by the Court below after considering the submission of the parties by holding that the suit property was not the same. After some arguments both the parties, however, have consented that as more or less the issue in all the three suits are same and in all the three suits the correctness of the decree dated 26.3.1939 in Title Suit No. 280 of 1938 as also the consequential auction sale dated 2nd March, 1941 and the delivery of possession effective on 21.11.1941 will be necessarily required to be gone into, the three suits may be heard together by making them analogous. Considering the aforementioned prayer as also taking into consideration the nature of the aforementioned three suits, this Court would dispose of this Civil Revision application with a direction to the Court below to make Title Suit No. 162 of 1998, Title Suit No. 170 of 1999 and 262 of 1999 analogous to each other and dispose of all the three suits together. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this Civil Revision application is disposed of. BCJ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)