IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.764 of 2008 **** Gowardhan Lal Pujari son of Late Sita Ram, Resident of Harding Road, P.S. Sachivalaya District-Patna. …. …. Petitioner - Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Collector, Patna. 2. The Collector, Patna. 3. The Secretary Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. S.D.O., P.W.D. Central Division, Patna. 5. Nagendra Kumar Pandey, Labour Enforcement Officer, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Baily Road, Patna. 6. Khagendra Kumar, Deputy Director, Higher Education Department New Secretariat, Patna. 7. Circle Officer of Patna Sadar Circle. …. …. Respondents - Respondents ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Gordhan Lal Pujari (Petitioner in person) ---------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --------- Dated, the 29th September, 2008. We heard, Gowardhan Lal Pujari, appellant in person. 2. It is not disputed by the appellant that earlier writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 6444 of 2005 was withdrawn by him. He, however, submits that some mistake was committed by him that he would execute the decree before the Civil Court as there was no decree for restoration of possession in his favour. 3. We perused the judgment dated 26th August, 1996 passed by the Court of Sub-Judge-I, Patna in the Suit filed by the - 2 - present appellant. In that suit, he prayed for a decree that the defendant (State of Bihar) has no right to demolish any portion of the temple standing over Plot No. 1195 and 1196 at Mauza Dhirachak, now know as Harding Road, P.S. Sachiwalaya, District-Patna bearing Khata No.60, details of which are set out in the plaint. After contest of the suit, the trial Court held that the plaintiff (appellant herein) has got his title and right over Plot No.1195 and 1196 and the temple in question was in existence for quite some time and the defendant has no right to demolish the old and ancient temple. The appellant was granted decree as claimed in the suit. Obviously, the said decree is executable, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant cannot move the Civil Court for execution of decree dated 26th August, 1996. 4. Dismissal of the writ petition by the Single Judge, therefore, cannot be faulted. 5. Letters patent appeal is dismissed in limine. 6. Needless to say that if the appellant moves the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance, such proceeding would be disposed of expeditiously. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-