IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.538 of 2011 1. Sidheshwar Prasad, S/o Late Paras Mahto, Resident of Village - Sadikpur P.S.- Telhara P.O.- Telhara, District - Nalanda 2. Bharat Kumar, S/o Sidheshwar Prasad , Resident of Village- Sadikpur P.S.- Telhara P.O.- Telhara, District - Nalanda 3. Satrughan Prasad Singh, S/o Sidheshwar Prasad, Resident of Village- Sadikpur P.S. - Telhara P.O.- Telhara, District- Nalanda …………. Plaintiffs/Appellants Versus 1. Bindeshwar Prasad, S/o Late Parash Mahto, Resident of Village- Sadikpur P.S.- Telhara , District- Nalanda. 2. Krishna Prasad , S/o Paras Mahto, at present residing at Mohalla - Shivpuri, Behind Purani Mandi, Chitkhra, Gardanibagh, Patna. 3. Madho Prasad , S/o Late Paras Mahto, Kushwaha Electro Homeo Clinic, Phulwari Sharif (Pothia Bazar), Opposite Durga Asthan, PATNA. 4. Udai Kumar, S/o Siasharan Prasad, residing at Village- Satamas P.S. - Khijarsrai, Hulasgang, District – Gaya. 5. Inder Prasad , S/o Siasharan Prasad, Resident of Village – Sadikpur, P.O. P.S. – Telhara, Subdivison- Hilsa, District – Nalanda. 6. Murari Prasad, S/o Bindeshwar Prasad, resident of village – Sadikpur, P.O. P.S. – Telhara, Subdivision- Hilsa, District – Nalanda. 7. Binoy Kumar, S/o Bindeshwar Prasad, resident of Village - Sadikpur P.O. P.S.- Telhara, Subdivision- Hilsa, District – Nalanda. 8. Sudhir Kumar, S/o Bindeshwar Prasad, resident of Village – Sadikpur, P.O. P.S. – Telhara, Subdivision – Hilsa, District – Nalanda. 9. Subodh Kumar, S/o Bindeshwar Prasad, Resident of Village – Sadikpur, P.O. P.S. – Telhara, Subdivision-Hilsa, District – Nalanda. 10. Kanhaiya Prasad, S/o Krishna Prasad, Resident of Village – Sadikpur, P.O. P.S. – Telhara, Subdivision – Hilsa, District –Nalanda. 11. Dhananjai Kumar, S/o Madho Prasad, Resident of Village – Sadikpur, P.O. P.S. – Telhara, Subdivision-Hilsa, District – Nalanda. …….. Defendants/ Respondents ---------------------------------- 3 15.11.2011 The present appeal under order XLIII Rule 1(s) has been preferred against an order dated 14.06.2011 passed in Title Suit No. 69 of 2010. The plaintiffs/appellants have filed a suit for partition of the suit property arraying the respondents as defendants. During the pendency of the partition suit the appellants filed a petition for appointment of ‘receiver’ which has been dismissed by the learned court below. 2 On perusal of the order it appears that the defendants while contesting the petition for appointment of ‘receiver’ had asserted that save and except for some properties the parties were in agreement for partition. In view of the fact that partition suit was filed in 2010 and from the order it appears that dispute is in respect of some of the properties, the court is of the opinion that instead of interfering with the impugned order the appeal can be disposed of with a direction to the court below to proceed with the main suit and conclude the same expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournment and preferably within a period of nine (09) months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The appeal stands disposed of. Praful ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)