IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2737 of 2009 ABBASH ANSARI, son of Hafiz Ansari, resident of village- Amodeyee, Tola Narirgir, P.S. & P.O. Ramgdhwa, District- East Champaran.… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR . 2. The Managing Director Bihar State Financial Corporation having its office at Frazer Road, Patna. 3. Branch Manager, State Financial Corporation having its office at Belwnwa, P.S. Motihari, Town, District- East Champaran. 4. Md. Zakirullah, son of late Md. Muvbarak Hussain, resident of village- Amodeyee Tola, Narirgir, P.O. & P.S.Ramgathwa District- East Champaran. 5. Attauo Rahman Ansari 6. Sarfudin Ansari, Both sons of late Rajjak Ansari. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 resident of village Indrawabhour, P.S. Paharpur, District- East Champaran. 7. Najir Miya 8. Zahir Miya, Both sons of late Jaitullah Miya,resident of village-Barawa, P.S. Adapur, District- East Champaran. 9. Md. Safiullah, son of not known, resident of village Amodayee, P.O. & P.S. Ramgadhwa, District- East Champaran…. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Ms. Alka Verma,Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For B.S.F.C.: Mr. Partha Sarthy, Advocate For the State: Mr. Madhukar Mishra, A.C. to G.A.7. ------ 4. 9.8.2010 The petitioner has filed the writ application for quashing the order of auction sale of the property of the petitioner by the Managing Director of the Bihar State Financial Corporation ( in short ‘B.S.F.C.’) and further direction to the Board of Directors of B.S.F.C. not to approve the auction sale. The admitted position is that the petitioner claiming to be a purchaser from two of the descendants of the original owner has filed a Title Suit No. 78 of 2008, which is pending in the Court of Sub-Judge, Motihari. In the said title suit an - 2 - injunction petition was filed by the petitioner against the B.S.F.C. with respect to the land purchased by the petitioner but the said application was ultimately rejected. Thereafter an abortive civil revision was filed in this Court, which was not maintainable. The petitioner, thereafter, filed Misc. Appeal before the District Judge, but the same was also dismissed on the ground of limitation. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that a writ application against the said order is in the process of filing. In view of the fact that practically for the same relief, the petitioner has applied for injunction before the Civil Court, which has been refused, this Court is of the view that in parallel proceedings directly under the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the same issue cannot be permitted to be raised. In the above circumstances, the writ application is dismissed. The dismissal of the present application, however, will not preclude the petitioner from challenging the order passed in the Misc. Appeal in appropriate proceedings, including a writ application, if so advised. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )