IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.352 of 2007 SIPAHI YADAV @ SIPAHI SINGH & ORS Versus MINA DEVI & ORS ----------- 11/ 16.03.2010 An interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 4290 of 2007 has been filed on behalf of the appellants for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In view of the submissions made in the interlocutory application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and I.A. No. 4290 of 2007 is disposed of. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. No one appears on behalf of the respondents. The appellants filed a suit for specific performance of contract with respect to 4.49 acres of land on the basis of Mohadanama dated 25.02.1997 executed by Deo Muna Kuer, grand mother of late husband of opposite party no.1. The description of lands has been mentioned in the plaint in detail. Counsel for the appellants submits that the learned court below without discussing the relevant principles for refusing or either granting injunction has rejected the application filed on behalf of plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. Learned counsel further submits that after execution of the Mohadanama, they were given possession of the land. However, the defendant nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the title suit, time and again are creating interference in peaceful enjoyment of the property. It would appear from the impugned order that the - 2 - respondents have disputed the genuineness of the Mohadanama. It would also appear from the impugned order that the plaintiff though filed a suit for specific performance of Contract, in alternative, also sought refund of his entire money. The trial court found that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff did not satisfy prima facie case at that stage. It appears that the suit is of the year 1998 and the impugned order has been passed on 22.12.2006. This Court finds that claim of the plaintiff has been disputed also. At this stage, I do not find that it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order refusing injunction. However, as the suit is of the year 1998 and more than three years have passed since refusal of the injunction. I direct the trial court in seisin of T.S. no. 181 of 1998 to dispose of the suit within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties, who would not cooperate in the suit, will do the same at their own cost. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J).