IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6445 of 2010 Baleshwar Mahto S/O Late Ram Dayal Mahto R/O Purani Bazar, Lakhisarai, P.O. + P.S.+ Distt.- Lakhisarai Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary Land Reforms Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. Binod Kumar Gupta S/O Sri Bishwanath Prasad Gupta R/O Vill.- Naya Bazar, Lakhisarai, P.O. + P.S. + Distt.- Lakhisarai 3. Chanchala Devi W/O Binod Kumar Gupta R/O Vill.- Naya Bazar, Lakhisarai, P.O. + P.S. + Distt.- Lakhisarai 4. Mohan Kumar Gupta S/O Sri Bishwanath Prasad Gupta R/O Vill.- Naya Bazar, Lakhisarai, P.O. + P.S. + Distt.- Lakhisarai 5. Bed Prakash Gupta S/O Sri Bishwanath Prasad Gupta R/O Vill.- Naya Bazar, Lakhisarai, P.O. + P.S. + Distt.- Lakhisarai 6. Smt. Anita Devi W/O Mohan Kumar Gupta R/O Vill.- Naya Bazar, Lakhisarai, P.O. + P.S. + Distt.- Lakhisarai 7. Smt. Sarita Devi W/O Bed Prakash Gupta R/O Vill.- Naya Bazar, Lakhisarai, P.O. + P.S. + Distt.- Lakhisarai 8. Smt. Laxmi Devi D/O Late Chhedilal Droliya, W/O Ram Kumar Santhaliya R/O Jamuria Hat, P.O. + P.S.- Jamuria (West Bengal) 9. Smt. Shanti Devi D/O Late Chhedilal Droliya, W/O Shankar Lal Resauthaliya R/O Jamuria Hat, P.O. + P.S.- Jamuria (West Bengal) 10. Smt. Satyabhama Devi D/O Late Chhedilaldroliya, W/O Sri Motilaljee Parasrampuria R/O Vill.- 2 Hb Sundarpally Shakuntala Part (Sursuma), Distt.- Calcutta (W.B.) 11. Smt. Premlata Devi W/O Late Chhedilal Droliya, D/O Mahendra Kumar Pitkoriwala R/O Sadar Bazar Station Road, Jamalpur, P.S. Jamalpur, Distt.- Munger ------------------- 03/ 22.09.2011 Heard Mr. Shabbir Hussain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Pravin Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.9.2009 passed by the Munsif, Lakhisarai in Title Eviction Suit No. 2 of 2001, whereby the learned Munsif while considering the application filed under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings 2 (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) has directed the parties to be present for the purpose of hearing. It is rather surprising that even when there is no order staying the learned lower Court proceedings, why the learned lower court below has not proceeded to hear the matter and to conclude the same despite a passage of more than two years since the passing of the order by this Court in C.R. No. 899 of 2006 and one and half years since the filing of the present writ petition. Thus regard being had to the earlier order passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 899 of 2006 dated 30.9.2008, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Munsif, Lakhisarai to take up the hearing of the application filed under Section 15 of the Act and conclude the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order by conducting day to day hearing and without giving any unnecessary adjournments. If the parties do not choose to cooperate with the hearing, the learned Munsif can proceed ex-parte. Soon after conclusion of Section 15 proceedings the learned Munsif would be well advised to take up hearing of the Title Eviction Suit No. 2 of 2001 which surprisingly has remained pending for a decade. Hearing of the Title Suit itself should also be concluded expeditiously and by conducting day to day hearing in the matter without giving any undue adjournment to either parties. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)