IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12757 of 2006 Gopal Lal son of late Rajo Lal, resident of Bakhtiarpur Station Teraha, P.S. Bakhtiarpur, District Patna .. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, 2. District Magistrate, Patna District- Patna, 3. Director General of Police, Patna, 4. Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna Distt.,Patna, 5. Sub Divisional Superintendent of Police, Barh,Patna, 6. Sub Divisional Officer, Barh, Distt. Patna, 7. Birendra Kumar Maghabi, Officer-Incharge, Bakhtiarpur Police Station, District Patna, 8. Jagdish Halwai, son of late Ramchandra Halwai, Bakhtiarpur, P.S. Bakhtiarpur, Distt. Patna, … Respondents For the Petitioner: M/s Amod Kumar and Raghwendra Kumar Singh, Advocates For the Respondents: M/s Putul Sinha, AC to GA 6 ----------- 2 05.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks direction upon respondent nos. 1 to 7 to take appropriate and effective steps against respondent no. 8 and restrain him from constructing house and other structure over the disputed lands, which are subject-matters of Title Suit No. 6 of 2002 pending in the court of the Munsif, Barh. It is submitted that the respondent no. 8 started constructing wall over the disputed land. Petitioner raised objection and upon his application a proceeding under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Proceeding (hereinafter to be referred to as “Code”) was initiated, which was later on 2 converted into a proceeding under section 145 of the Code. The petitioner thereafter filed Title Suit No. 6 of 2002 for declaration of right, title and interest and also for removal of encroachment from the land in dispute, which is pending before the Munsif, Barh. Respondent no. 8 has already appeared in the suit and is contesting the same. However, the petitioner submits that respondent no. 8 again started making construction on 21.09.2006 compelling the petitioner to file a petition for grant of injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure immediately on 22.09.2006, which was pending at the time of filing of this writ application. But even though his injunction petition was pending before the trial court, the Officer-in-Charge concerned (respondent no. 7) did not take any step to restrain the respondent no. 8, which goes to show that he has come in collusion with respondent no. 8. Thereafter, the petitioner moved before different authorities to restrain the respondent no. 8. As no action was taken the petitioner has been compelled to file this writ application. However, at the time of hearing of this matter, learned counsel for the petitioner informed this Court that the petition filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has already been dismissed by the trial court. 3 Learned counsel for the State submits that the proceeding under section 145 of the Code has also been decided against the petitioner and later on the petitioner has himself stated that the injunction petition has been dismissed by the trial court. In above view of the matter it is urged that the petitioner cannot maintain this writ application as the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction has already decided the issue and is further deciding the lis between the private parties in the concerned title suit. As such, the whole allegation of the petitioner that respondent no. 7 has encouraged the respondent no. 8 to make construction over the disputed land is of sweeping nature and baseless without being corroborated by any sort of evidence. I find force in the submission made on behalf of the State. The petitioner has lost in the proceeding under section 145 of the Code as well as during the pendency of this writ application his petition for restraining the respondent no. 8 from making any construction over the disputed land filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has also been dismissed as informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself. Thus, the only course open to the petitioner was to challenge the aforesaid order passed under Order 4 XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure before a forum available under law. When the question of right, title and interest is pending before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and the matter of injunction was also being heard by the aforesaid Civil Court, there was no occasion for the petitioner to move before this Court for restraining the respondent no. 8 in its writ jurisdiction. As a result, this writ application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, this order would not come in the way or prejudice the appropriate court or forum while deciding the matter of injunction. SC (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)