IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14151 of 2010 BIHAR STATE RELIGIOUS TRUST BOARD THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, MR. KISHORE KUNAL, VIDYAPATI MARG, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTRICT- PATNA. ……….DEFENDANT-PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE LAW SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. ……….RESPONDENT- 1ST SET. 2. SRI SARVA MANGALA DEVI TRUST THROUGH ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, PREM SHANKAR CHOUDHARY. 3. PREM SHANKAR CHOUDHARY, MANAGING TRUSTEE. 4. UMA SHANKAR JAISWAL, TRUSTEE, BOTH SONS OF LATE RAM CHANDRA PRASAD CHOUDHARY. 5. SHAMBHU PRASAD CHOUDHARY, TRUSTEE S/OLATE BHOLA PRASAD CHOUDHARY. ALL RESIDENTS OF GULZARBAGH, STATION ROAD, P.S-ALAMGANJ, DISTRICT- PATNA. ….PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioners : M/s K. N Choubey and Ambuj NayanChoubey. For the State of Bihar: Mr. Alok Ranjan, A.C to G.P- 9. For the respondent nos. 2 to 5 : Mr. A.K Sinha. 03 29.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and learned counsel for private respondent nos. 2 to 5. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the defendant-petitioner challenging order dated 20.07.2010 and 29.07.2010 by which applications filed by defendant-petitioner for adjournment of the suit and for taking into evidence certain documents as exhibits were rejected by Subordinate Judge-V, Patna City in Title Suit No. 370 of 1989. 3. The aforesaid Title Suit was filed by respondent nos. 2 to 5 for declaration that the Trust in question namely Sarva Mangal Devi Trust was a private Trust and for other ancillary reliefs. In the said - 2 - suit pleadings were complete, issues were framed and evidence were led in which the plaintiff evidence was concluded and twenty seven witnesses on behalf of defendants were already adduced when the aforementioned applications were filed by the defendant-petitioner. 4. It is also apparent from the records that an application was filed by private respondents nos. 2-5, in the aforesaid Title Suit No. 370 of 1989 which was numbered as Miscellaneous Case No. 211 of 1999 for setting aside the scheme framed by the President of the defendant Board u/s 32 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act- 1950 and the said Miscellaneous Case was rejected by the District Judge, Patna. The said order of the District Judge dismissing Miscellaneous Case No. 122 of 2007 was challenged by the said respondents in M. A No. 122 of 2007, which is pending in this court and in that appeal order dated 19.03.2010 was passed directing the Subordinate Judge, Patna City to expedite the aforesaid Title Suit No. 370 of 1989 without giving any undue adjournment to any of the parties as the matter was very important but was pending since, more than two decades and the suit was directed to be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date fixed in the suit i.e 23.04.2010. By a subsequent order of this court dated 25.08.2010 the said period was extended till 05.10.2010. 5. From the afore said facts it is quite apparent that the applications filed by the defendant-petitioner in Title Suit No. 370 of 1989 in the month of July-2010 for bringing on record certain documents were without assigning any reason as to why the said materials were not produced earlier, although all of them being old - 3 - documents should have been with the Board. 6. In the said circumstances, the said applications either for adjournment or for producing further documents were without any merit and were obviously filed to delay the suit circumventing the aforesaid orders passed by this court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 122 of 2007. 7. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order of the trial court nor does it find any merit in the instant writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. However, if any appeal is filed by any of the parties against the final judgment and decree of the trial Court in Title Suit No. 370 of 1989, the defendant-petitioner will be at liberty to file an application before the Appellate Court for taking the said documents as additional evidence. The suit shall proceed as per the directions given by this court in the abovementioned Miscellaneous Appeal. Ranjan (S.N Hussain, J.)