IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.804 of 2010 AKHTAR ALI, son of Abdul Majid, resident of village- Paigambarpur, P.S. – Baniapur, District- Saran….Defendant/Petitioner. Versus 1. SHEIKH TOIMUDDIN @ MD. LAL BABu, son of Sheikh Nijamuddin, resident of village- Baniapur, Tola- Ahra, P O. & P.S.- Baniapur, District- Saran. ….Plaintiff/Opposite Party 2. Toukir Ali, son of Abdul Majid, resident of village- Paigambarpur, P S.- Baniapur, District- Saran. … Defendant/Opposite Party. … Opposite Parties. ----------- 3. 08.12.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also taking into account the nature of the impugned order, this Court is of the considered opinion that an issue as to whether the plaintiff-opposite party had the competence and capacity to file suit, could have been gone into only at the time of final hearing of the suit. The plea of the defendant-tenant-petitioner that under Muslim Law the son will have no right to sue or claim eviction in the life time of his father and thus the issue of maintainability of the suit at the instance of the plaintiff-opposite party could have gone into by way of preliminary issue, is misconceived inasmuch as the exhaustive definition of the explanation ‘landlord’ under Bihar Building Act includes even an agent or assignee. In that view of the matter, the 2 issue of maintainability of the suit as it would involve a question of fact could not have been gone into within the limited parameters of Order XIV, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That being so, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order and accordingly, this Civil Revision being misconceived, is hereby dismissed. Kanchan ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)