1. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the opposite party.

2. The impugned order passed by the District Judge, Samastipur only rejects the prayer of the petitioners, defendants in an eviction suit, for transferring the eviction suit from the Court of Munsif, Dalsingsarai to the Court of Sub-Judge-lll, Samastipur where a partition suit No. 35/ 2003 filed by the petitioner is said to be pending between the same parties.

3. Mr. Hare Krishna Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, white referring to paragraphs 11 and 12 of the plaint and paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 of the written statement has seriously contended that as there is a serious and complicated question of title involved in the eviction suit which is also subject matter of a separate partition suit, the ends of justice could have been met, had the District Judge allowed the transfer of eviction suit to the court where the partition suit was pending. He is of the view that when the petitioners tenants have their independent right of title being purchaser of the suit property, the suit for eviction cannot be tried independently and must be heard by the same court where issue of tit