ANIL KUMAR SINHA, J.:–Heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order, dated 15.12.2017, passed, in Civil Misc. (Tr.) Case No. 177 of 2017, by the learned District Judge, Patna, whereby the application filed by the petitioner, under Section 24 of the C.P.C., for transfer of Title Partition Suit No. 50 of 2016, pending in the Court of learned Sub Judge-I, Patna, to the Court of learned 8th Additional District Judge, Patna (now, 9th Additional District Judge), has been rejected.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed Probate Case No. 832 of 2014 before the learned District Judge, Patna, for grant of probate on 24.04.2014 on the strength of the Will, dated 06.05.1987, executed by his late father, Maheshwar Prasad Sinha, with regard to the suit property, which is a residential house, situated in Abulas Lane, Machchuatoli, Police Station Kadamkuan, Patna, pertaining to Ward No. 17 (New)/11 (Old), Circle No. 28, M.S. Plot No. 85 Part, Holding No. 54/136, having an area of 1728 sq. ft.

4. The sister of the petitioner, i.e. the sole respondent herein appeared in the probate case and filed her objection and accordingly, Probate Case No. 832 of 2014 has been converted into Title Suit No. 08 of 2017 and now, the same is pending before learned 9th Additional District Judge, Patna.

5. The respondent herein filed Title Partition Suit No. 50 of 2016 before learned Sub Judge-I, Patna, where it is still pending and the respondent is praying before the Court to adduce evidence and the Court is ready to take evidence.

6. Since the subject matter, i.e. property involved in Title Suit No. 08 of 2017 and Title Partition Suit No. 50 of 2016 are the same and the parties are also the same, accordingly, the petitioner filed a petition for transfer of Title Partition Suit No. 50 of 2016 in the Court of 9th Additional District Judge, Patna, before the learned District Judge, Patna, so that Title Suit No. 08 of 2017 (arising out of probate case) and Title Partition Suit No. 50 of 2016 be clubbed and tried together.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per Section 18 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, the District Judge and/or the Civil Judge, Senior Division, exercises concurrent jurisdiction to decide the original suit having the suit value of more than Rs. 1,50,000/-.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of this Court, in the case of Krishnapal Singh Raghuvanshi Vs. Rabindra Pd. Singh and Others, reported in 2009 (4) PLJR 918. Paragraph 9 of Krishnapal Singh Raghuvanshi (supra) is quoted herein below:—

“9. At the time of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners then confined his prayer to the issue that both the cases may be heard together, as the adjudication of the issues involved in the probate case will have a direct impact upon the suit. Learned counsel relies upon decisions of the Apex Court in Nirmala Devi Vs. Arun Kumar Gupta and Others, reported in (2005)12 SCC 505 and Balbir Singh Wasu Vs. Lakhbir Singh and Others, reported in (2005)12 SCC 503, and unreported decision of this Court in Dwarika Singh and Others Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari Devi and Others to demonstrate that in similar nature of cases the probate cases were directed to be clubbed along with the title suit to be heard together.”

9. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that he has no objection if Title Partition Suit No. 50 of 2016, filed by the respondent herein, is transferred to the Court of learned 9th Additional District Judge, Patna, to be heard and tried together along with Title Suit No. 08 of 2017 (arising out of probate case), filed by the petitioner.

10. In view of the aforesaid submissions and law laid down by this Court, in the case of Krishnapal Singh Raghuvanshi (supra), the impugned order, dated 15.12.2017, passed, in Civil Misc. (Tr.) Case No. 177 of 2017, by the learned District Judge, Patna, is hereby set