IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 12069 OF 2011
Sumesh Kumar @Sumesh Prasad ------ ------------Defendant / Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Sushila Devi & Ors -------------------Plaintiffs / Respondent
********
Dated : day of August, 2011
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO
ORDER
05. 30.08.2011. 1. Heard the learned senior counsel, Mr. Dhruv
Narayan Singh on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.
Narendra Roy on behalf of the respondent.
2. This application under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for
setting aside the order dated 04.04.2011 passed by
Munsif Ist, Chapra in Eviction Suit No.12 of 2005. The
plaintiffs-respondents filed this eviction suit No.12 of
2005 against the petitioner for eviction on the ground of
personal necessity only.
3. From perusal of the impugned order, it
appears that at the time of hearing of the eviction suit,
the petitioner contended that another eviction suit filed
-2-
by the plaintiffs-respondents against the petitioner
which is pending in the Court of Sub Judge on the
ground of defaulter should also be heard along with this
eviction suit. It was also contended that title suit No.88
of 2005 filed by the petitioner for restraining the
present plaintiff from forcibly evicting the petitioner
may also be heard with the present eviction suit. By
the impugned order, the learned Court below rejected
the said oral prayer. The petitioner has filed this writ
application against the said rejection order.
4. Admittedly, as has been admitted by the
petitioner in paragraph 8 of this writ application, the
present suit has been filed against the petitioner for
eviction on the ground of personal necessity only. The
other suit which has been filed by the plaintiff-
respondent is on the ground of default which is pending
in the Court of Sub Judge and the suit filed by the
present petitioner is that the plaintiff should not
forcefully evict him. Considering these aspects of the
matter, the learned Court below rejected the prayer to
hear all three suits analogously.
5. Since the suit for personal necessity is to be
tried by special procedure as provided under BBC Act
and the other suits are to be tried like any other suit
and the appeal and second appeal will be followed
whereas in the suit for personal requirement, the tenant
-3-
has only right to file revision if the suit is decreed. In
view of the above fact, in my opinion, the learned Court
below has rightly refused to hear the other suits
analogously as it will prejudice the rights of the parties.
6. In view of the above facts, in my opinion, the
impugned order cannot be interfered with in the
exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ
application is dismissed.
P Patna High Court, Patna (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)
The 30thday of August, 2011
Sanjeev/N.A.F.R.