IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2162 of 2008 MAHENDRA MISHRA Versus DEVENDRA MISHRA & ORS ----------- 2. 9.1.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner. A civil litigation these days easily completes a jubilee either silver or golden. Here it has celebrated golden jubilee, inasmuch the partition suit was filed in the year 1959 and its decree is yet to be executed within 2009. The grievance of the petitioner seems to be genuine that when the plaintiff- decree holder has been made to run around the corridor of the court for last 50 years before getting the process of execution of decree completed by way of delivery of possession on 10.5.2008 it was absolutely unnecessary and uncalled for to now ask him to contest a miscellaneous case which has arisen on account of an objection filed by the O.P.Nos. 20 to 23 (defendants No. 20 to 23). This Court however on perusal of the objection petition would find that there was a little option to the court below but to entertain the plea as against the report 2 of the Nazir affecting delivery of possession, inasmuch as certain malafide were attributed against him. That being so, if the court below by the impugned order has entertained the miscellaneous case, that by itself will not be a jurisdictional error. None-the-less by such impugned order it is the petitioner who would suffer the most and therefore, even when this Court would not interfere with the impugned order it would still direct the court below to ensure that the miscellaneous case entertained by it under the impugned order must be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/