IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.235 of 2010 1. Kanak Lata Devi, Wife of Late Virendra Prasad Gope (Yadav). 2. Bhushan Yadav, Son of Late Virendra Prasad Gope (Yadav). 3. Bibaka Devi, Daughter of Late Virendra Prasad Gope (Yadav) All resident of Village – Bishunpur Bahore, P.O.- Mirjapur Bandawar, P.S. – Begusarai Nagar, C/O S.D.M. and Registry- Begusarai, District – Begusarai. ……… Plaintiff/Appellant Versus 1. Ram Prakash Yadav, S/O Late Nathuni Gopel, R/O Village Bishnupur Bahore, P.O. Mirjapur Bandawar, P.S. Begusarai Nagar, C/O S.D.M. And Registry -Begusarai, District- Begusarai. 2. Jai Prakash Yadav, S/O Late Nathuni Gopel, R/O Village Bishnupur Bahore, P.O. Mirjapur Bandawar, P.S. Begusarai Nagar, C/O S.D.M. And Registry- Begusarai, District- Begusarai. …….. Defendants / Respondents ---------------------------------- 13 14.10.2011 Heard Sri Uma Shankar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Pramod Manbansh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the Respondents. The present Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) has been preferred against an order dated 19.11.2009 passed in Title Suit No. 126 of 2009 by learned Sub Judge I, Begusarai. By the said order the learned court below has rejected the petition filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff/appellant has filed a suit for partition which has been numbered as Title Suit No. 126 of 2009. The suit is pending and during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff has filed petition for interim injunction. After hearing the parties the learned court below has dismissed the same. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that if interim injunction is not granted there is every possibility that 2 Respondents may dispose of all the properties which is the subject matter of the suit, and as such, for the ends of justice, it is desirable to restrain the Respondents from disposing of the property by granting ad-interim injunction. Sri Pramod Manbansh, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that partition in between the parties had already taken long back, and without any right or interest, the appellant/plaintiff has filed the partition suit, and as such, it was submitted that in case of refusal of interim injunction no irreparable loss is going to be suffered by the plaintiff. In view of the fact particularly the fact that interim injunction was already rejected in the year 2009 and suit for partition is pending, the court is of the opinion that instead of allowing petition for interim injunction, it is desirable to direct the learned court below to proceed with the case expeditiously, so that, trial may conclude without any delay. Sri Pramod Manbansh, learned counsel for the Respondents, undertakes that the Respondents who are defendants before the court below, will co-operate in early disposal of the suit. With above observation and direction the Appeal stands disposed of. Praful ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)