IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No. 604 of 2009 Smt. Ina R. Patel, Wife of Shri Rasik Bhai Patel, resident of Lakashmi Niwas, Bankarganj, Gola Road, P.S.-Pirbahore Town and District-Patna. …….Defendant/Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Madhukar Shyam. 2. Shri Sudhakar Shyam. Both sons of Late Ramesh Prasad, resident of Mohalla-Nageshwar Colony, Boring Road, P.S.-Budha Colony, Town and District-Patna. …….Plaintiffs/Opposite Parties. With C.R. No. 621 of 2009 Smt. Ina R. Patel, Wife of Shri Rasik Bhai Patel, resident of Lakashmi Niwas, Bankarganj, Gola Road, P.S.-Pirbahore Town and District-Patna. …….Defendant/Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Madhukar Shyam. 2. Shri Sudhakar Shyam. Both sons of Late Ramesh Prasad, resident of Mohalla-Nageshwar Colony, Boring Road, P.S.-Budha Colony, Town and District-Patna. …….Plaintiffs/Opposite Parties. ----------- 02. 15.05.2009 Heard. Suit for eviction of the petitioner was filed in respect of building and a land which was vacant. The land was adjoining to the premises of the building but it does not appear acceptable from the order passed by the court below that it was a separate land pertaining to a separate building which was within the definition of term building. The court below has come to a finding that the claim was in respect of the building and not in respect of the vacant land. The - 2 - question which was raised in the present revision application is that the rejection of the plea of the petition for dismissing the suit in respect of the vacant land which could not be the part of the building was not proper and being not part of the building or in other words not being covered by the definition of the term building. The court could not try the eviction of the petitioner from the vacant land inasmuch as it could not be covered by the suit in question. But, in my opinion, the Court could try the eviction of the petitioner in respect of the building which could be covered by the findings of the term under the Bihar Building (Lease Rent and Eviction Control) Act. I direct, the court below to confine its trial to the issue of eviction of the petitioner. It is well-known to be reiterated that the court should pass appropriate order in the partition suit. With the aforesaid observation, the two petitions stand disposed of. Vikash/- (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)