IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.766 of 2010 VIJAY KUMAR SINGH @ VIJYANAND Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 03. 26.04.2011 Heard. Petitioner an advocate has appeared in person and files supplementary affidavit. The grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that he entered into the sale agreement with the respondent no. 3, who paid advance amount of Rs. 3 lacs. The respondent no. 3 did not pay the entire consideration amount of Rs. 13 lacs. However, later on, the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 entered into a second agreement for sale with respect to the lesser area and the petitioner, accordingly, executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent no. 3, to the extent of that lesser area. Petitioner’s allegation is that the respondent no. 3 without making any further payment however, took into possession of the entire area without making any further payment and also assaulted the petitioner for which a complaint case being Complaint Case No. 836C of 2010 has been filed and pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that this writ court is not an appropriate forum for redressal of the grievances in respect of restoration of possession. It is further submitted that this is a matter of civil dispute. Considering the rival submission of the parties, the prayer of the petitioner that possession of area over which the petitioner did not execute any deed in favour of the respondent no. 3 should be restored back to him can be appropriately considered in the Civil Court. The writ proceeding being an inappropriate for redressal of the grievances as highlighted in the writ petition. As such, the writ application is accordingly dismissed. Jagdish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)