IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10810 of 2010 SITA RAM MEHTA S/O POON MAHTO R/O VILL SHIKHAR, P.S.MUFFASIL, DISTT-GAYA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT COURT, GAYA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR DISTRICT COURT, GAYA 3. KAPILDEO MEHTA @ KAPILDEO MAHTO 4. SHALIGRAM MEHTA 5. RAM NATH MEHTA ALL THE THREE Res. 3 to 5 ARE SONS OF LATE BAIJNATH MAHTO R/O VILL SIKHAR, P.S.MUFFASSIL, DISTT-GAYA 6. RADHEY MEHTA @ RADHEY KANT MEHTA 7. MUNESHWAR MAHTO BOTH RES. NO. 6 & 7 ARE SONS OF LATE POON MEHTA R/O VILL SHIKHAR, P.S.MUFFASIL, DISTT-GAYA For the petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Hassan, Sr. Advocate. For the State : Dr. Md. R.Haque, G.P.-V ----------- 2. 25-08-2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 15-05-2010 by which District Judge, Gaya dismissed Misc. Case No. 18 of 2010 which was filed by the Defendant no. 2 - petitioner for transferring T.S. No. 111 of 1993(69 of 2009) before any other court. 3. The aforesaid case was filed by plaintiffs- respondents nos. 3 to 5 for declaration that the decree passed in earlier T.S. No. 149 of 1987 was obtained by fraud etc. and was not binding upon the plaintiff. It further transpires that on 16- 05-2009 defendant-petitioner filed an application in the title suit stating the facts and praying that he may be allowed to adopt written statement filed by the defendant no. 1. The said 2 petition was rejected by the trial court on 01-09-2009 and he was debarred from filing written statement. Against the aforesaid order the defendant-petitioner filed C. R. No. 1879 of 2009, which is pending in this court in which a prayer has also been made for stay for further proceeding of the suit. 4. However, so far the instant question of transferring the title suit to another court is concerned, the District Judge has very carefully considered the mater and found no merit in the contention of the defendant-petitioner and accordingly he dismissed the miscellaneous case with a direction to the trial court to dispose of the title suit within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 5. This court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the aforesaid order of the District Judge and hence this writ petition is dismissed. However, the order with regard to disposal of the title suit within six months shall be subject to any order passed by this court in the aforesaid civil revision. Sujit (S.N.Hussain,J.)