PATNA, India, July 7 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 1:

The record taken up on mentioning being made on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and I intend to dispose of the instant petition at the stage of admission itself.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.07.2024 passed by the learned Munsif, Bettiah, West Champaran in Title Suit No. 67 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court stayed the proceeding of Title Suit No.67 of 2016 by allowing the petition dated 22.08.2022 filed by the respondent/defendant 1st set under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents 2nd set initially filed Title Suit No. 286 of 2015 claiming property of Khata No. 575, Khesra No.6610, Area 2 Katha, which was executed in favour of the petitioner through registered sale deed dated 19.06.2015. The plaintiff of Title Suit No. 286 of 2015 claimed that the original landlords Bhosdi Raut and Devbali Raut vide registered sale deed dated 08.06.1945 sold out 3 Katha 15 Dhur of land to Sheikh Kasim, but due to mistake of scribe in place of Khesra No. 6610, Khesra no.6609 was recorded, but the boundary was correct. Subsequently, a part of the said land was purchased by the plaintiff, but the mistake in mentioning the wrong Khesra number continued. On the other hand, the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 67/2016 against the defendants/respondents of the present case and the claim of the petitioner is that the sale deed of the plaintiff mentioning Khesra No. 6609 is correct and the land purchased by the petitioner bearing Khata No.575, Khesra No. 6610, Area 2 Katha which the petitioner purchased from the heirs of the original land owner is correct. The learned counsel further submits that the claim of the petitioner in a subsequent suit is that the sale deed of the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 286/2015 mentions the correct Khesra number which is 6609 and they have no concern with Khesra No. 6610. So the dispute in the two suits does not relate to the same issue. Therefore, the learned trial court committed an error in staying the subsequent suit.

5. Perused the record.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NDQjMzQzIzIwMjUjMSNO-mlaAkL--ak1--Y3Sc=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.