Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
1. The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 22.11.2007 (Annexure-1) passed by the 1st. Additional District Judge, Darbhanga in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17/2000 and also the order dated 6.5.2000 (Annexure-2) passed by 4th Subordinate Judge, Darbhanga in Title Suit No. 125/1999 by which the prayer for injunction of the petitioner as also for direction for staying the issuance of delivery of possession in Title Execution case No. 6/93 pending in the Court of 1st. Munsif, Darbhanga has been rejected.
2. The short facts leading up to the present matter are that the petitioner claims to have purchased 11 1/2 Dhurs of land of Plot No. 26982 for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- by a registered sale deed dated 26.11.1987 from one Amiriti Devi and her daughter and the petitioner was put in possession over the same. Thereafter mutation was also made, Municipal Revisional Parcha was issued and he has been depositing the tax in favour of the Government. According to the petitioner, said Amiriti Devi was legally wedded wife of one Hare Krishna Sah and the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had purchased properties from one Gulab Devi whose status was of a mere concubine of said Hare Krishna Sah since her so called marriage in 1970 with said Hare Krishna Sah was no marriage in the eye of law. It is stated that the said Gulab Devi had executed many sale deeds and as such Amiriti Devi and her daughter filed Partition Suit No. 157/86 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Darbhanga for partition of their 2/3rd share from the entire properties of Hare Krishna Sah. The said suit is still pending.
3. In the meantime, Eviction Suit No. 24/88 was filed by the respondents in the Court of 1st. Munsif, Darbhanga against the petitioner seeking his eviction from the suit premises. By order dated 17.11.1992 the suit was decreed in favour of the respondents. The petitioner challenged the same by filing C.R. No. 38/93 which was dismissed on merits after hearing both the parties by order dated 18.3.1993. The petitioner had also filed Title Appeal No. 5/92 before the District Judge, Darbhanga which was heard on transfer by 2nd Additional District Judge, Darbhanga who set aside the order of the trial court by judgment and decree dated 8.7.1997 holding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Against the same the respondents filed Second Appeal No. 233 of 1997 before this Court and by order dated 15.2.1999 this Court set aside the order of the appellate Court and directed the said Court to return the memo of appeal to the defendant to enable him to prefer revision under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent, Eviction and Control) Act. The petitioner thereafter filed Civil Review No. 218/1999 for review of the order dated 15.2.1999 passed in S.A. No. 233/97. The review application was disposed of by order dated 13.10.1999 in which this Court recorded the fact that although C.R. No. 38/93 under Section 14(8) of the BBC Act was dismissed on merit on 18.3.1993 but the said fact was not disclosed at the time of hearing of Second Appeal No. 233/97 and, therefore, while holding that the appeal was not maintainable and setting aside the appellate judgment, the said direction was made to return the memo of appeal with a liberty to the petitioner to file Revision under Section 14(8). For the reasons aforesaid the review application was disposed of after recalling the last part of the order dated 15.2.99 by which direction was given to return the memo of Title Appeal and also the liberty given to the petitioner to file Revision under Section 14(8) leaving it open to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy available to him in accordance with law.
4. Thereafter the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 125/99 in the court of the 1st. Subordinate Judge, Darbhanga seeking declaration of his title, confirmation of possession and ultimately recovery of possession and further for a declaration that the sale deed in favour of the respondents is not binding on the plaintiffs and they are not entitled to get delivery of possession on the basis of the Eviction Suit No. 24/88 and prayer for permanent injunction was also made. The respondents in the meantime had filed execution case No. 6/93 in the Court of Execution Munsif, Darbhanga. In the said execution case the petitioner filed objection regarding executability pointing out the pendency of his own suit in which an order was passed confirming the report of the Advocate Commissioner. The petitioner thereafter filed C.R. No. 1276/06 before this Court in which by order dated 18.12.2006 the Executing Court was directed to proceed expeditiously with the execution case. Again the petitioner sought an injunction in T.S. No. 125/99 for restraining the respondents from taking delivery of possession till pendency of suit which was rejected by order dated 6.5.2000. In the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17/2000 before the District Judge, Darbhanga against the said order by order dated 19.6.2000 an order of status quo was initially passed but finally by order dated 22.11.2007 the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has approached this Court.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised various issues but pleads ultimately before this Court to act in the interest of justice since if the decree of the eviction suit is executed then the petitioner and his family members would be rendered homeless. Learned Counsel has sought to argue the case also on the basis of the provisions of Section 44 of the Transfer of Properties Act under which the transferee of a property from one of the co-owners can only enforce a partition of the same subject to the conditions and liabilities affecting at the date of the transfer, the share or interest so transferred to him and no further. It is also submitted by him that the sale deed having been obtained by the respondents from a so-called second wife married in 1970 during the subsistence of the marriage of erstwhile owner of the property with the first wife from whom the petitioner has purchased the property, the same is invalid in the eye of law.
6. After the amendment to the Civil Procedure Code by the Amendment Acts with effect from 2002, the Civil Revision against an order of the present nature has become not maintainable and in the said circumstances, the remedy available to an aggrieved party in such circumstances is one under Article 227 of the Constitution or a writ of certiorari under Article 226 as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. : AIR2003SC3044 . However, it has been clearly laid down in the said decision that the said power should be exercised in rare cases keeping in mind the legislative policy formulated on experience and expressed by enactments where the legislature in exercise of its wisdom has deliberately chosen certain orders and proceedings to be kept away from exercise of appellate and revisional jurisdiction in the hope of accelerating the conclusion of the proceedings and avoiding delay and procrastination which is occasioned by subjecting every order at every stage of proceedings to judicial review by way of appeal or revision.
7. In view of the several rounds of litigations in the present matter by the petitioner to somehow frustrate the decree passed in the eviction suit which has attained finality, this Court does not consider the present matter to be such a rare case where its power ought to be exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution. Moreover, it is a settled principle of law that an eviction suit itself ought not to be stayed merely on the ground of pendency of Title Suit with respect to the same property. In such circumstances, there can hardly be any justification for staying the execution of a decree in eviction suit which has attained finality.
8. On a consideration of the judgment dated 22.11.2007 of the 1st. Additional District Judge, Darbhanga as also the order dated 6.5.2000 of the 4th Subordinate Judge, Darbhanga, this Court does not find any patent illegality or error of law on the face of the record in the said judgments. For the said reasons also the same is not fit to be interfered with in the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.
9. Thus, there does not appear to be any merit in the present writ application and it is accordingly dismissed.