IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.670 of 2009 Bibi Raiful Versus Nasibun Nishan & Ors For Petitioner: Mrs. Saba Ashfaque,Advocate. For Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 4: Mr. Uday Bhanu Roy, Adv. Mr.Ashok Kumar Prasad, Advocate. Mr.Prabhas Ranhan, Advocate. ---------------------------------- 08. 15.12.2011 Heard Mrs. Saba Ashfaque, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Uday Bhanu Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 to 4. By the impugned order, the appellate court below has set aside the order passed by the Munsif, Madhubani in Miscellaneous Case No.06/02 dismissing the said miscellaneous case as barred by res judicata. The appellate court below has remanded the matter back to the Court of Munsif for reconsideration of the case afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce their evidence. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the appellate court has committed illegality in holding that the miscellaneous case under Order 21 Rule 58 was not barred by res judicata and has wrongly 2 remanded the matter back for fresh consideration on merits. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has asserted that the finding of the appellate court below is legal and valid as the adjudication of the sale deed in an eviction suit can never be said to be final adjudication and such finding will have no force to attract the bar of res judicata. After hearing the submissions on behalf of the parties and considering the impugned order. I find no jurisdictional error in the appellate court below. The revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)