IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1156 of 2006 NAND KISHORE SINGH Versus MAHESH SINGH & ORS ----------- 13 25.9.2008 In this case some very disturbing facts have been brought to the notice of this court with respect to Title Suit No. 88 of 1993 pending before the Sub Judge IX, Vaishali at Hajipur. It appears that Misc. Appeal No. 162 of 1995 was filed in the High court against the order, dated 10.7.1995 passed by Sub Judge I, Hajipur in T. S. No. 88 of 1993 whereby the petition filed on behalf of plaintiff-respondent no.1 was allowed and the parties were directed to maintain status quo with respect to the suit land. There was a direction in Misc. Appeal No. 162 of 1995 passed on 13.3.1996 that the title appeal should be disposed of within a period of six months on receipt of the order of the court. The court also gave liberty to the parties to bring to its notice if there was any laches on the part of the parties for delaying the direction given on 13.3.1996. It appears that despite the order of this court several officers who were posted at Hajipur and were in seisin of the file ignored the orders of the court and delayed the disposal of the title suit. In the mean time, a Civil Revision No. 215 of 1996 was instituted in this court. The order of the High court, dated 6.8.1997 was challenged before the Supreme court and the Supreme court dismissed the S.L.P. on behalf of the aggrieved party. The order passed in the civil revision on 6.8.1997 indicates that at that stage 2 twenty five witnesses had already been examined on behalf of the plaintiff. It is surprising that since the year 1997 to 2008, no further steps have been taken. This court called for an explanation from Sub Judge IX, Hajipur who was in seisin of the case. The report indicates that apart from taking note of the order of this court, the officer concerned was disposing of the interlocutory applications filed on behalf of one or the other party. Surprisingly a plea has been taken that the Judge in fact did not know about the order of the court as none of the parties had brought the same to the notice of Sub Judge IX, Hajipur. At this stage this court would not like to comment on the conduct of the officers who were in seisin of the title suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner informed this court that at present the court of Sub Judge IX, Hajipur is vacant. In the circumstances this court directs the District & Sessions Judge, Hajipur to transfer T.S. No. 88 of 1993 to any other court for its disposal. As already stated that twenty five witnesses have been examined by the plaintiff and now it will perhaps be the turn of the defendant to lead evidence. The petitioner who is defendant in this case submits that he has to examine ten witnesses in the suit. I, therefore, direct the court below who would be in charge of T.S. No. 88 of 1993 to take all possible steps and reopen the matter and hear the suit on a day to day basis. I further direct that the court should not grant time just for the asking and should see that the 3 parties appear and pursue the case. If the court feels that the parties are evading the hearing of the suit and are filing unnecessary petition, then the court may impose heavy cost on party filing such petition. The District Judge, Hajipur is directed to transfer the suit aforesaid within a period of ten working days on receipt of a copy of this order. This application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)