IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.410 of 2006 1. MAN MOHAN PRASAD, SON OF LATE DUKHIT RAM. 2. RAM ISHWAR RAM @ RAMESHWAR PRASAD. 3. HARE RAM PRASAD. BOTH ARE SONS OF MAN MOHAN PRASAD. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE:PIRAUTA, P.S. ARRAH MUFFASIL, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR. ……………………………..DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-APPELLANTS. Versus 1. ABDUL HAQUE. 2. SHAMSUL HAQUE. BOTH ARE SONS OF LATE ISLAM MIYAN. 3. ASMA KHATOON. 4. NUR JAHAN. BOTH ARE DAUGHTER OF LATE ISLAM MIYAN. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PIRAUTA , P.S. ARRAH MUFFASIL, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR. …………………………………………………………………………............... ......PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS(1ST SET)- RESPONDENTS (1ST SET) 5. SHEO KUMARI DEVI, WIFE OF SHEO PRASAD RAM, DAUGHTER OF LATE DUKHIT RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE:DAWA, P.S. JAGDISHPUR, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR. 6. RAJ KUMARI DEVI, WIFE OF RAM SIDH RAM, DAUGHTER OF LATE DUKHIT RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-AKAWNA, P.S. BARHARA, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR. 7. RAM PATI DEVI, WIFE OF SINGESHWAR RAM, DAUGHTER OF LATE DUKHIT RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE: KOLH RAMPUR, P.S. KOILWAR, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR. ……DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS 2ND SET-RESPONDENT 2ND SET. ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Md. Alaul Haque, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, Advocate. ----------- 11. 24.3.2009. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants who are also the appellants of Title Appeal No.1 of 1994 and have preferred this appeal against the order dated 9.8.2006, whereby the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Bhojpur at Arrah, has granted staus quo over the suit lands. It appears that Title Suit No.1 of 1986 was decreed by the - 2 - Additional Munsif-I, Arrah, wherein the appellants herein happen to be the defendants. The Suit was for declaration of title over the suit lands measuring 10 decimals appertaining to khesra no.705, khata no.285 in mauja Pirauta within Arrah Muffasil P.S. and confirmation of possession. The decree of the Munsif further directed that the defendant-appellants should give to the decree holders vacant possession over the house standing on the suit land within three months from the decree on their own, failing which the plaintiff would acquire possession under the process of law. I fail to understand what adversity or detriment is caused to the appellants herein by the lower appellate court granting an order of status quo to be maintained. As a matter of fact, the status quo happens to be to the advantage and benefit of the appellants. Since the appeal filed by these very appellants is pending in the court below and status quo has been directed to be maintained during the pendency of the appeal, I see no merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed under Orders 41 Rule 11 C.P.P. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)