IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1010 of 2006 SATRUDHAN SAH Versus RAMNATH SAH & ANR ----------- 3 17.11.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the opposite parties. This Court would not find any error in the impugned order. Once a finding has been arrived by the Court below that Partition Suit No. 13 of 1991 actually had become infructuous, the prayer of the petitioner to make the same analogous with the Title Suit No. 201 of 1990 and Title Suit No. 261 of 2004 had to be dismissed and therefore, once it has been done so by the impugned order this Court will not find any reason to interfere with such impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that certain evidence have been laid in Partition Suit No. 13 of 1991 which are common and should be taken on record in Title Suit No. 201 of 1990. This Court would not like to make any observation in this regard but then would give liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court below for this purpose. With the aforementioned observations and directions this Civil Revision application is disposed of. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)