IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15198 of 2004 1. DEVENDRA KUMAR SINGH 2. UPENDRA KUMAR SINGH, 3. JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH, ALL SONS OF LATE DHARMNATH SINGH 4. INDU DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE DHARMNATH SINGH. 5. RAMESHWAR SINGH, 6. JALESHWAR SINGH, BOTH SONS OF LATE RAM CHANDRA SINGH. ALL RESIDENTS OF JALPURVA, P.O. SASRAO, P.S. BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT- SIWAN DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAM NAGINA SINGH, SON OF PUNDEO SINGH, 3. RAMESHWAR SINGH, SON OF JANAKDEO SINGH, 4. SUMANT SINGH, SON OF RAMESHWAR SINGH, 5. RAMAYAN SINGH, SON OF JANAKDEO SINGH, 6. RENU KUMARI WIFE OF BHARAT SINGH 7. MADHU KUMARI, MINOR DAUGHTER OF BHARAT SINGH, 8. CHANDAN KUMAR, MINOR SON OF BHARAT SINGH, 9. GURIA KUMARI, MINOR DAUGHTER OF BHARAT SINGH, 10. ANKIT KUMAR, MINOR SON OF BHARAT SINGH, RESPONDENTS 7 TO 10 ARE MINOR SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF LATE BHARAT SINGH, UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF RENU KUER, MOTHER AND GUARDIAN. 11. DASRATH SINGH, SON OF JANAKDEO SINGH, 12. BINOD SINGH, SON OF GIRIJA SINGH, RESPONDENTS 2 TO 12 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- JALPURWA, P.O. SASARAON, P.S. BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT- SIWAN. 13. NARENDRA NATH TIWARY, SON OF DHARMNATH TIWARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ARUWA PIPRAHIA, P.O. ARUWA, P.S. BHAGWANPUR, HAT, DISTRICT SIWAN --- PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS/OPP. PARTIES/RESPONDENTS. 14. CIRCLE OFFICER, BHAGWANPUR BLOCK, P.S. BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT SIWAN. 15. THE COLLECTOR, SIWAN, DISTRICT SIWAN. 16. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SIWAN, DISTRICT SIWAN – DEFENDANTS/ RESPONDENTS/OPP. PARTIES/RESPONDENTS. ----------- 5/ 21-04-2011 Heard the parties. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition questioning the validity and legality of order dated 5th July, 2004 2 (Annexure-2) passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 103 of 1995 by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Siwan, whereby appeal filed by the private respondents against the order dated 25.09.1995 passed by learned Munsif- Ist, Siwan, was allowed and during the pendency of the suit, status quo was directed to be maintained by the parties. Learned lower appellate court has further directed that suit itself be disposed of at an early date, preferably within a period of six months from the date of the order, dated 5th July, 2004 (Annexure-2). After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent no.13, this Court is of the considered opinion that instead of deciding the question of injunction afresh, it would be in the interest of both the parties that Title Suit No. 180 of 1995 itself is decided on merit within a time fixed by this Court. Apparently, even the lower appellate court has directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to suit properties. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned trial court to finally decide the Title Suit No. 180 of 1995, if not already disposed of, within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. No costs. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)