Anil Kumar Sinha, J.—Heard Mr. Vinod Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chandra Kant, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent.

2. The petitioner is defendant in Title Suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent bearing Title Suit No. 78 of 1997. The Title Suit has been filed for declaration that the gift deed dated 7.12.1993 executed by one Kedar Sah in favour of the defendant/petitioner, is forged, fabricated, sham document and the same be declared illegal, null and void.

3. One Moti Sah who is the father of Chotelal Sah, plaintiff and Kedar Sah, executed gift deed in favour of the defendant/petitioner. While challenging the gift deed, various grounds have been taken by the plaintiff including the ground that there was no intention of Kedar Sah to execute the gift deed in favour of the defendant No. 1 and he never executed the same, as such, no occasion had arisen in favour of the defendant No. 1 to accept the gift given by Kedar Sah.

4. The suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 19.9.2003 and an appeal bearing Title Appeal No. 110 of 2006 has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent which is pending before the 1st Additional Se