IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1975 of 2009 Devendra Mahton son of late Sita Ram Mahto, resident of village Barauni Flag, Tola Jagarnathpur, Ward no.13, P.O. Barauni Deorhi, P.S. Teghra, District Begusarai. ……..Defendant-Petitioner. Versus Mahabir Mahton son of Langru Mahton, resident of village Barauni Tola, Jagarnathpur, P.O. Barauni Deorhi, P.S. Teghra, District Begusarai at present resident of Begusarai Town, Near Sadar Hospital, P.S. Begusarai Town, District Begusasrai. ……Plaintiff-Opposite party. For the petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate. For the opposite party : None. ----------- 05/ 17.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil revision is being finally heard at this stage at the instance of the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 29.08.2009 by which learned Munsif-II, Begusarai rejected his application for stay of Execution Case No.01 of 1990 (13/1997) till the disposal of Title Suit No.183 of 2000. 3. The aforesaid execution case has arisen out of Eviction Suit No.23 of 1987(01/1989) which was filed by the plaintiff- opposite party for eviction of the predecessors of the defendant- petitioner on several grounds. The said eviction suit was decreed as far back as in the year 1989-90 but no appeal or revision was filed against the said judgment and decree of eviction by either the petitioner or his predecessors, who were defendants in the said suit. Hence the plaintiff of the eviction suit, who is opposite party in the instant civil revision, filed Execution Case No.01 of 1990 (13/1997) 2 which is still pending although a very long time has lapsed. 4. It further transpires that after about a decade of the aforesaid judgment and decree in the eviction suit and also filing of the execution case, the petitioner had filed Title Suit No.183 of 2000 for declaration of his right, title over the suit property and also for confirmation of possession and other ancillary reliefs against the opposite party which is still pending. Thus, pendency of title suit filed much subsequently cannot be legally a ground before the executing court to stay the execution proceeding awaiting the disposal of the title suit. 5. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. 6. However, the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in Title Suit No.183 of 2000 will be at liberty to file an application for injunction against opposite party, who is the defendant in that suit which, if filed, will have to be decided on its own merits. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )