IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.782 of 2006 NAGESHWAR OJHA & ANR Versus ASHWINI KUMAR OJHA @ LALU & ORS. ----------- 5 11.11.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court. A litigant is expected to come out with a bonafide and a fair picture of his dispute. In the present case, earlier in Title Suit No. 114 of 1961, the suit property of the present suit (Partition Suit No. 93/2002) was also the suit property and that suit had abated under Section 4(C) of the Consolidation Act. Such order between the parties became final and thereafter, the present partition suit was filed, plaint whereof has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to this civil revision application. It is really unfortunate that in the aforesaid plaint, not a word has been said about the earlier suit or the suit having abated in respect of that very suit property which was being made subject matter of the present suit. That being so, this Court would hold that the earlier order of abatement having remained unchallenged, could not have been belittled by the petitioner especially when he had suppressed this fact in the plaint. There is yet another reason for this Court to dismiss this civil revision application inasmuch as when 2 the argument had started, this Court was made to understand that ever since the abatement of the earlier suit, the nature of the property has changed. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the plaint by way of pleadings to suggest that either from the stage of filing of the earlier suit, the nature of the property had changed from agricultural to urban land. In that view of the matter, this Court would not find any reason to come to a different conclusion other than what has been reached by the Court below in abating the suit in question. The reasonings which have weighed upon the Court below are also assailed Mr. Dwiwedi by stating that such reasonings could not have been at least the reason for abating the suit. This Court would find that if the Court below in the impugned order has relied on an earlier order passed in the Partition Suit No. 114 of 1961 and has come to a conclusion that this suit has to abate in view of the Order dated 22.2.1977 and 18.10.1993 passed in earlier suit Partition Suit No. 114 of 1961, that by itself is sufficient to decide the issue in question. That being so, this civil revision application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)