IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasized the requirement for the court to adjudicate all questions of right, title, and possession in the property claimed by the objector under Order XXI Rule 97, and clarified the distinction between the jurisdiction under Article 227 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned senior counsel for the parties.

2. This application has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 24.04.2018 passed in CWJC No.16584 of 2014 (Raghuwar Sharan Vs. Bhim Prasad Sah & another). By the judgment under review, this Court has been pleased to set aside the order dated 18.07.2014 passed by learned Sub-Judge, IV, Bettiah, West Champaran in Misc. Case No.21 of 2012 and remitted the matter to the court below to dispose of the Miscellaneous Case in accordance with law.

3. It appears from the narration of facts available on the record that the petitioner in the writ petition had filed Title Eviction Suit No.191/2002 in the court of learned Sub-Judge-1st at Bettiah against his tenant Panna Lal Sah (respondent no.2) on the ground of default in payment of rent. The said Eviction Suit was decreed on contest vide judgment and decree dated 30.08.2009 passed by learned Sub Judge-IV, West Champaran.

4. The respondent no.2 preferred first appeal bearing F.A. No.55 of 2011 in the court of learned District Judge, Bettiah which was also dismissed by the lower appellate court and then the Second Appeal No.5 of 2012 brought before this Court was dismissed vide order dated 24.07.2013.

5. The decree holder in Title Eviction Suit No.191/2002 filed Execution Case. During pendency of the second appeal, the brother-in-law of the judgment debtor filed Misc. Case No.24 of 2011 in Execution Case No.01 of 2010 which was dismissed by the learned Executing Court on 22.06.2012.

6. It appears that the full brother of respondent no.2 (judgment debtor) filed Misc. Case No.21 of 2012 under Order XXI Rule 97 on the ground that the land bearing Khata No.8, Survey Plot No.1457, Area 0.77 decimal at village Narkatiyaganj originally belonged to Bettiah Raj. He claimed that his ancestor named Dhup Sah took settlement of the plot in question measuring 8 khata 5 dhur. The Jamabandi of the plot was opened in the name of his ancestor Dhup Sah and the same continued to run in the sirista of Bettiah Raj. The objector in Misc. Case No.21 of 2012 has claimed that his ancestor Dhup Sah died living behind his four sons namely Gudar Sah, Ram Ratan Sah, Paras Sah and Baijnath Sah. In due course there was a partition between all the sons of the deceased Dhup Sah and the entire area of plot no.1457 fell in the share of Gudari Sah in lieu of other lands. The said Gudari Sah, it is claimed, died in the year 1993 in the state of jointness leaving behind his widow Devla Devi and his three sons namely Haridwar Sah, Bhim Prasad Sah (respondent no.1) and Panna Lal Sah (respondent no.2, judgment debtor in execution case no.01/2010). Since other details as claimed by the objector in the miscellaneous case are not relevant for the present adjudication, this Court is not going into much detail.

7. The bone of contention in the writ is the order dated 18.07.2014 passed by learned Sub Judge-IV in the Misc. Case No.21 of 2012. It is submitted that the petitioner (decree holder) had filed a Misc. Case No.37 of 2014 in the court of learned District Judge for transfer of Misc. Case No.21 of 2012 from the court of learned Sub-Judge-IV, Sri H.N. Pandey to any other court for disposal of the case. The learned District Judge vide his order dated 11.06.2014 called for a report from the learned Sub-Judge. Thereafter, the learned Sub-Judge submitted his report denying the allegations against him but gave his consent to transfer the case to any other court. This was, however, nullified by the learned Sub-Judge-IV by his own conduct inasmuch as he proceeded to partly decide the Misc. Case No.21 of 2012 whereunder he confirmed the possession of respondent no.1 and fixed a date for deciding the issue of title.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner (decree holder) contended before this Court that the learned Sub-Judge-IV proceeded to decide the application partly when the transfer case was pending before the learned District Judge and a report had been called for from the learned