Patna High Court - Orders
Anil Kumar & Ors vs Ram Autar Modi on 12 April, 2013
Author: Jyoti Saran
Bench: Jyoti Saran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Revision No.655 of 2008
======================================================
Anil Kumar & Ors
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
Ram Autar Modi
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
Second Appeal No.80 of 2000
======================================================
Anil Kumar & Ors
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
Ram Autar Modi
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance:
(In C.R. No.655 of 2008)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Najmul Hoda
Mr. Arjun Prasad
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Singh
(In SA No.80 of 2000)
For the Appellant/s :
Mr. Najmul Hoda
Mr. Firoz Ahmad
Mr. Sushma Saran
Mr. Izhar Ahmad
Mr. Shashi Bhushan Prasad
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
05. 12-04-2013Whereas C.R. No. 655 of 2008 arises from an order dated 07.03.2008 passed by learned Munsif, East Muzaffarpur in Title Suit No. 220 of 2002, whereby the learned court below has been pleased to reject the objection filed by the defendants who are the petitioners in the Civil Revision questioning the maintainability of the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 14(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and requiring the objections to be decided as Patna High Court C.R. No.655 of 2008 (5) dt.12-04-2013 2 the preliminary issue, the Second Appeal No. 80 of 2000 arises from a judgment and decree passed in Eviction Appeal No. 4 of 1995 questioning the judgment and decree dated 1.6.1995 passed in Eviction Suit No. 51 of 1988. Vide order passed on 09.07.2008 the Civil Revision was directed to be heard alongwith Second Appeal No. 80 of 2000.
I have perused the records of the Civil Revision as also those of Second Appeal and I am of the opinion that the Second Appeal and the Civil Revision application are involving different issues are arising out of separate proceedings, and thus cannot be disposed of by a common order. For the same reason the two cases cannot be heard analogous.
In that view of the matter, the hearing of the two applications are segregated. As I am not holding roster for hearing Second Appeal, let the Second Appeal No. 80 of 2000 go out of my list to be listed before the appropriate bench as per roster after obtaining the permission of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
C.R. No. 655 of 2008 Put up in Hearing-I on 16.04.2013.
(Jyoti Saran, J) S.Sb/-