IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17503 of 2009 1. SUBHASH CHOUDHARY S/O KAMAL PRASAD R/O VILL.- PAITHAN PATTI, P.S.- MANJHAGARH, DISTT.- GOPALGANJ 2. KRISHNA CHOUDHARY S/O KAMAL PRASAD R/O VILL.- PAITHAN PATTI, P.S.- MANJHAGARH, DISTT.- GOPALGANJ 3. RAJ KISHORE CHOUDHARY S/O KAMAL PRASAD R/O VILL.- PAITHAN PATTI, P.S.- MANJHAGARH, DISTT.- GOPALGANJ Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COLLECTOR GOPALGANJ 2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR-CUM-COLLECTOR GOPALGANJ 3. THE DISTRICT SUB-REGISTRAR GOPALGANJ, P.O., P.S. & DISTT.- GOPALGANJ 4. SMT. KALAWATI DEVI D/O LATE LAKHI CHAND CHOUDHARY R/O VILL.- PAITHAN PATTI, P.S.- MANSHAGARH, DISTT.- GOPALGANJ ----------- 2. 7.1.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. No notice need be issued to respondent no. 4 at this stage in view of the nature of the order to be passed. Jaburia Case No. 2 of 1991 was filed by the petitioner against respondent no. 4 before the District Magistrate, Gopalganj. When the matter was not being disposed despite hearing having been concluded on 7.4.2005 , this Court at the behest of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8861 of 2005 directed expeditious disposal of the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have renumbered the case as Jaburia Case No. 1 of 2007, giving the impression that the earlier case no more exists. A counter affidavit has been filed on 2 behalf of the official respondents. It states at Paragraph-6 that respondent no. 4 had requested the proceeding in Jaburia Case No. 2 of 1991 to be stayed as she had filed a title suit. The counter affidavit is silent on what orders if any in the Title suit have been passed more particularly with regard to Jaburia case and whether there was any order of injunction etc. The order dated 27.9.2007 registers Jaburia Case No. 1 of 2007 as the commencement of a fresh case suggesting closure of Jaburia Case No. 2 of 1991. But the counter affidavit does not make any statement to that effect in explicit term. It is not possible for the Court to decipher if Jaburia Case No. 2 of 1991 ever came to an end or not and whether Jaburia Case No. 1 of 2007 shall stand as a separate proceeding or not. These are matters which can more adequately be discussed and decided by the Collector himself. From the Proceedings in Case No. 1 of 2007, it is apparent that the petitioner must also bear a part of the blame for delay as the order sheet reflects that he has also not been very vigilant about appearance. Let the District Magistrate pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order disposing of the issue finally within a maximum period of four months 3 from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order after hearing all concerned including respondent no. 4. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)