IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA M.A. No.587 of 2010 1. RAJ KUMAR SINGH, S/O LATE BASUDEO SINGH 2. GANESH SINGH, S/O LATE BASUDEO SINGH BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE BANIAPUR, P.S. BANIAPUR, DISTRICT SARAN AT CHAPRA .. APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS Versus 1. UMRAWATI DEVI, W/O SRI DHUP NARAYAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE MARIPUR, THURD, P.S. MANJHI, P.O. MANJHI, DISTRICT SARAN AT CHAPRA 2. LAL BABUSINGH, S/O RAM KAILASH SINGH 3. AJAY KUMAR SINGH, S/O RAM KAILASH SINGH BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILALGE BANIAPUR, P.O. + P.S. BANIAPUR, DISTRICT SARAN AT CHAPRA 4. HARENDRA SINGH, S/O RUP NARAYAN SINGH 5. RABINDRA SINGH, S/O RUP NARAYAN SINGH BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE DHOURI MADARPUR, P.O. MADARPUR, P.S. MASHRAKH, DISTRICT SARAN AT CHAPRA 6. BABAN SINGH 7. BIRENDRA SINGH 8. RABINDRA SINGH 9. BIPIN SINGH RESPONDENTS 6 TO 9 ARE SONS OF LATE SUKAT SINGH AND RESIDENTS OF VILALGE + P.O. + P.S. BANIAPUR, DISTRICT SARAN, CHAPRA 10. SRIMATI SARSWATI DEVI W/O BIRENDRA OJHA 11. SHASHI BHUSHAN OJHA, S/O BIRENDRA OJHA 12. MANI BHUSHAN OJHA, S/O BIRENDRA OJHA 13. RAJMATI KUWAR W/O BHARAT OJHA RESPONDENTS 10 TO 13 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE BASATPUR , P.O. + P.S. BANIAPUR, DISTRICT SARAN AT CHAPRA .. RESPONDENTS **** /5/ 08.09.2010 Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against - 2 - the order, dated 21.06.2010, passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, II, Saran at Chapra, in T.A. No. 2 of 2007 by which he has rejected the petition under Order 39 Rules 1 ad 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. 3. The appellants filed a suit for declaration that family arrangement deed, dated 13th July, 1984 is sham, fabricated and ab initio void. 4. The case of the plaintiffs is that they admittedly being the co-sharer, the property was distributed behind their back and, hence, challenged the family arrangement deed. Hence, suit is dismissed and appeal preferred. In the appeal a petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code is filed with prayer to maintain status quo on the land as status quo was existing all along during the suit, but, the same has been rejected and, hence, the appeal. 5. However, the hearing of appeal for admission under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, both the parties agreed and undertake to maintain status quo during three months that T.A. No. 2 of 2007, pending before the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, II, Chapra, be disposed off within three months and appellate Court be - 3 - directed to dispose off the case within the time limit. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, undertakes that he will finish his argument within these days and the contesting respondents before this Court contended that they will finish the argument within a fortnight after the argument of appellants is finished in 1st appellate Court, however, pointed out that some of the respondents, who are party in appellate Court, have not been made party by pas here may obstruct as they are having tied up or having similar interest of appellants, however, the appellants undertake that they take the responsibilities to finish the argument of those respondents not made party to finish their argument within a week after the argument of contesting respondents is finished. 7. Hence, in view of submissions, it is hereby ordered that the order of status quo, as undertaken by the parties, shall continue for three months and the appellate Court shall dispose off the appeal within three month. However, the parties will appear on 20th of September, 2010, in the lower appellate Court. The appellate Court shall fix a date after the appearance of the parties and if the - 4 - date fixed is for a longer period then the Court below shall recall the date suitable and convenient to the parties in September, 2010, itself, and proceed with the hearing on day-to-day basis, any adjournment shall be strictly in compliance of Order 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. However, if the appellants did not conclude the argument within a month from the date of the receipt of this order then the order of status quo shall come to end after expiry of one month. However, if the appellants finish their argument within a month contrary respondents shall to conclude their argument within a fortnight, who is party here. If the respondents could not finish the argument then the argument of respondents deemed to have been concluded and another fortnight be given to other respondents as undertaken by the appellants. Hence, if the argument of the parties concluded within two month the Court shall pronounce the judgment within a month and hence the case is hereby ordered to be concluded within three months, the presiding officer is directed to conclude the case within the time prescribed. However, it may be noted that if the case is not concluded for whosoever fault would be, the consequence shall follow, - 5 - but the period of status quo shall not in any case be allowed to travel beyond three months and shall come to an end after expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the order to lower Court. 8. The District Judge is hereby ordered to monitor the case so that T.A. No. 2 of 2007 may be disposed off as per the time schedule and the case may not be transferred or remain pending in any vacant Court during the period. I hope and trust that the case shall be disposed off within the time frame. 9. With these observations and directions, this application is disposed off. 10. The office is directed to send this order at once to lower appellate Court for disposal of T.A. No. 2 of 2007 pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, II, Saran at Chapra, as well as to the District Judge, Saran at Chapra, for compliance through fax at the cost of the High Court. Cp:2/S.A. (Gopal Prasad, J. )